(How) Does One Tell The Truth

(How)DoesOneTellTheTruth?
AdaptationsofUncleTomsCabinforDutchchildrenfrom
18532008
Name MarijavanWelie
Studentnumber 0437964
Study EngelseTaalenCultuur
MAThesis Vertalen
University UniversiteitUtrecht
1
st
Supervisor Dr.CeesKoster
2
nd
Reader Prof.Dr.TonNaaijkens
1
Index
Index.......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter1.TheSource............................................................................................................. 6
1.1TranslationHistory:CultureinTranslations............................................................. 6
1.2SourceCulture............................................................................................................... 7
1.3SourceText..................................................................................................................... 9
1.4SourceAuthor .............................................................................................................. 11
Chapter2.TheTranslationHistoryofUTCinDutch...................................................... 12
2.1TheTranslationHistory:Why?.................................................................................. 12
2.2Table1.OverviewofthefirsteditionsofUTCinDutch ....................................... 14
2.3Table2.OverviewofallEditionsofUTCinDutch................................................ 17
2.4 TheTranslationHistory:anAnalysis .................................................................. 21
Chapter3.Politics&SocietyinHolland............................................................................ 29
3.1 TheAbolitionofSlaveryinHolland.................................................................... 29
3.2 TheInfluenceofUncleTomsCabin.................................................................... 31
Chapter4.WritingandTranslatingforChildren............................................................. 33
4.1ABookforWhom? ...................................................................................................... 33
4.2WhywasUTCAdaptedforChildren?..................................................................... 34
4.3TranslatingforChildren............................................................................................. 37
4.4Illustrations:AVisualLanguage.......................................................................... 39
4.5WhoreadsWhat?......................................................................................................... 40
4.6ChildrensLiteraturefrom18502008....................................................................... 41
Chapter5.TextualAnalysisEenKijkjeindeHutvanoomTombyA.G.Bruinses......... 43
5.1ATertiumComparationis:SourceText.................................................................... 44
5.2ATertiumComparationis:APeepinUncleTomsCabin .................................... 47
5.3ATertiumComparationis:EenkijkjeindehutvanoomTom............................. 49
5.4TranslationStrategies.................................................................................................. 51
5.5AdaptationofPlot&Phrasing................................................................................... 52
2
5.6InterpretationofThemesandTextWorld ............................................................... 54
5.7Society............................................................................................................................ 56
5.8ChildImage&ChildrensLiterature........................................................................ 57
5.6TheIllustrations ........................................................................................................... 58
Chapter6.TextualAnalysisDehutvanoomTombyP.deZeeuw................................. 61
6.1ATertiumComparationis .......................................................................................... 61
6.2TranslationStrategies.................................................................................................. 63
7.3.1InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Race...................................................... 66
7.3.2InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Religion&Gender............................ 69
6.4Society........................................................................................................................... 70
6.5ChildImage&ChildrensLiterature........................................................................ 71
6.6TheIllustrations ........................................................................................................... 74
Chapter7.TextualAnalysisDehutvanoomTombyEdFranck..................................... 76
7.1ATertiumComparationis .......................................................................................... 76
7.2DehutvanoomTombyFranck:TranslationStrategies........................................ 78
7.4.1.InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Race..................................................... 84
7.4.2.InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Religion.............................................. 86
7.4.3.InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Gender&Society............................. 89
7.5ChildImage&Childrensliterature ......................................................................... 90
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 94
Bibliography....................................................................................................................... 97
3
Introduction
UncleTomsCabin(UTC)remainsanamazingbook,notintheleastintermsofits
reception.Tobeginwith,thenovelwasanunprecedentedsalessuccess:bymid1853
morethanamillioncopiesweresold(Norton,363).Besides,fewtonowomenhave
thereputationtohavestartedawarbywritinganovel.HarrietBeecherStowehas
thatreputation:adecadeafterthepublicationofUTC,atthebeginningoftheCivil
War,AbrahamLincolnhimselffamouslygreetedherasthelittleladywhomade
thisgreatwar(Gossett,314).However,theSouthernnovelistWilliamGilmore
SimmsascertainedthatMrsStowebetraysamalignitysoremarkablethatthe
petticoatliftsofitself,andweseethehoofofthebeastunderthetable(Gosset,190).
ThequotesindicateBeecherStowewaseitherpraisedtotheskiesorcondemnedas
animmoralwoman.Further,thereactionsonthecontentsofUTCwerewidely
divergent.Thenovelwaspraisedfordefendingtherightsoftheblacksaswellas
heartilydenouncedforharbouringalatentracism.Thus,thereceptionofUTC
showedhowliteraturecaninfluencethegeneralpublicopiniontoagreatextentand
eventuallyevenindirectlybringaboutpoliticalandsocialchanges.
However,UTChasaworldwidepopularityandisnotmerelyinterestinginan
Americancontext.Immediatelyafteritspublication,UTCwastranslatedinvarious
languages.InFranceonly,elevendifferenttranslationswerepublishedwithinten
monthsafterUTCspublication(Kadish,55).BymeansoftranslationsUTCreacheda
worldwidereadingaudience.Thesetranslationsareasinterestingasthesourcetext,
becausetranslationsneverappearinacultural,politicalorliteraryvacuum.Onthe
opposite,translatorsarealwaysanintrinsicpartofthenegotiatingdialogueitself,
holdingafragile,unstablemiddlebetweenthesocialforcesthatactuponthem(),
theirowninterpretationofthesourcetextandtheirassessmentofthetarget
audience(VanCoillie&Verschuren,v).InthisMAthesisIwanttoresearchhowthe
DutchtranslationsofUTCforchildrenreflectthecontemporaryopinionsaboutthe
child,childrensbooksandsociety.
Inordertoanalysethetargettextandthetranslationnormsandstrategies,a
basicunderstandingofthesourcetextisinvaluable.InChapter1thesourceculture,
sourcetextandsourceauthorwillbedescribedindetail.Thischapterhasa
frameworkfunction,asitmakesclearinwhichculturalcontextUTCwaswritten
andthusenhancestheunderstandingandappreciationofthebook.
AyearafteritspublicationUTCwastranslatedintoDutchandreprintedtime
andagain.Thetranslationhistoryinchapter2showsUTChadacontinuing
popularityinHollandsinceitsfirstpublication.Thefactsandfiguresofthe
translationhistoryarenottheendofthestory,butgiverisetomanyinteresting
questions:whywasUTCadaptedforchildrensooften?Whatmadeparticular
translationssosuccessful?DidUTCinfluencetheopinionoftheaverageDutchmen
aboutslavery?
4
Around1853,UTCscallforabolitionwasrelevantfortheDutchreaderstoo,
becauseslaverystillexistedintheDutchcolonies.Inchapter3thepoliticalsituation
concerningslaveryintheDutchcolonieswillbedescribed.Iwillbrieflyinvestigate
whetherthereareindicationsifthepublicationofUTCactuallyinfluencedthepublic
opinionaboutslaveryandifDutchreadersappliedthecallforabolitiontoslaveryin
theDutchcolonies.
MosteditionsofUTCinDutchaimatatargetaudienceofchildren.Asthe
mainfocusofthisMAthesisisonadaptationsofUTCforchildren,inchapter4Ill
givesomebriefinformationaboutchildrenbooksingeneral.First,Illinvestigate
whatcharacteriseschildrensbooksanddistinguishesthemfrombooksforadults.
Onthebasisofthatinformation,IlltrytoanswerthequestionwhichaspectsofUTC
madethenovelsosuitabletobeadaptedforchildren.ThefactthatUTCwasnot
originallywrittenforchildren,doeshaveconsequencesforthetranslationsfor
children.Someattentionwillbepaidtothetranslationstrategiestranslatorshave
appliedtothetranslationofbooksforchildrenandhowtheyadaptedadultbooks
andpassagesforajuvenileaudience.
Inthefinalchapters,threeadaptationsforchildrenwillbeanalysedindepth.The
theoreticalinformationgiveninthefirstchapterswillbeusedtoanalysethe
translations.Thefinalgoaloftheanalysesistoanswertheresearchquestion
adequately:HowdothedifferenttranslationsandadaptationsofUTCinDutchreflectthe
contemporaryopinionsaboutthechild,childrensliterature,andsocietyinHolland?
Thethreeadaptationsthatwillbeanalysedareeachrepresentativeforacertain
period.A.G.Bruinsessadaptationappearedin1853andbecametheofficial
translationforchildrenforthenextfiftyyears.Fromthe1940sonwards,P.de
Zeeuwsadaptationbecameverypopular.ThewellknownFlemishwriterEdFranck
(1941)publishedhisadaptationofUTCin2003.Itwillbeinterestingtoinvestigate
whattranslationstrategiesthesetranslatorsappliedtothesourcetext,which
translationnormsdeterminedtheirchoices,andwhattheirchildimagewas.Inthe
sourcetext,raceandreligionarethecentralthemes.Oneofthemainquestionsis
howtheirtranslationstrategiesinfluencedthethematicinterpretationofthetext
world.BeecherStowesprimarygoalwiththesourcetextwastoconvincepeopleof
theinjusticeofslavery,butshealsofocussedonthenonviolentforceofreligionin
bringingaboutjustice.Asaresult,raceandreligionarethecentralthemesofthe
sourcetext.Besides,manyadaptationsofclassicsforchildrenkeepthesocial
criticismoftheoriginaloutofaccount.IntheanalysisIllalsopayattentiontothe
questionhowthetranslatorsdealtwiththesocialcriticismofthenovel.
Below,theresearchquestion,subquestionsandbibliographyofthetranslations
arelisted.
ResearchQuestion
HowdothedifferenttranslationsandadaptationsofUTCinDutchreflectthe
contemporaryopinionsaboutthechild,childrensliterature,andsociety?
Inordertoanswertheresearchquestionproperlyandorderly,itcanbedividedin
thefollowingsubquestions.
InwhichculturalandliterarycontextwasUTCwritten?
Whatcharacterisedthesourcetext,theauthorandthesourceculture?
WhatinformationdoesthetranslationhistoryofUTCinDutchreveal?
HowandwhenwasslaveryabolishedinHolland?
WasthepublicopinionaboutslaveryinanywayformedbyUTC?
WhatcharacteristicsofUTCmadeitsuitabletobeadaptedforchildrenso
often?
Howdidthegenrechildrensbooksevolvefrom18501900?
Whatkindofstrategiesdotranslatorsusuallyapplytothetranslationof
childrensbooks?
Whatinformationdothetranslationstrategiesrevealaboutthechildimage
andideasaboutchildrensliteratureofthetranslators?
Dothetranslationstrategiesinfluencethethematicinterpretationofthetext
world?
Aretheadaptationsrepresentativeofthetimetheyappearedin?
6
Chapter1.TheSource
1.1TranslationHistory:CultureinTranslations
Inthe1970stheIsraeliEvenZohardevelopedtheinfluentialpolysystem
theory,thatwouldcometoplayanimportantroleintranslationstudies.EvenZohar
stronglyobjectedagainststudyingatextanditstranslationontheirownandstressed
theimportanceoftheliteraryandculturalcontextofatext.InIntroducingTranslation
StudiesJeremyMundaydescribeshowEvenZoharstudiedtranslationsinthelarger
social,literaryandhistoricalsystemsofthetargetculture(108).Zoharscoordinated
approachoftranslationsstimulatedanintegratedapproachtowardsatextandits
translationintranslationstudies.Zoharstressedthatatextispartofaliterarysystem
andisincontinualinterrelationshipwithotheraspectsofthesystem.Zohar
blamedthetraditionaltextapproachfornotpayingattentiontoseeminglyless
importantgenres,likechildrensliterature(109).AsaresultofZoharsapproach,
translationscametobestudiedinthecontextofthesocial,historicalandcultural
forcesofsociety.
LikeZohar,GideonTourystatedthatagoodtranslationstudyshouldnotfocus
onatranslationinisolation,buthadtotakethebiggerwholeofthesourceand
targetcultureinaccount.Thetranslationstrategiesthatareemployedaredetermined
bythesocialandliterarysystems(112).Tourysultimategoalwastodraw
conclusionsaboutthenormsthatplayedadeterminingroleinthetranslation
process.Inhisview,everytranslationisgovernedbynorms:sociocultural
constraintsspecifictoaculture,societyandtime(113).Knowledgeaboutthenorms
thatareusedinaliteraryfieldcanprovideinsightsinthetranslationprocess,and
sourceandtargetculture.
ZoharandTourybothstressedtheinterrelationshipbetweenatextandculture,
andclaimedthatatextanditstranslationsareexpressionsofacertaincultureand
shouldnotbestudiedontheirown.Thesuddenandgrowingattentionforthe
culturalcontextwasofsuchascalethatMarySnellHornbynameditthecultural
turn(127).Thistermdescribesthegradualchangeintranslationstudiesfrom
describingatextanditstranslationinmerelinguistictermstotheanalysisofatext
anditstranslationinitscultural,socialandliterarycontext.Hence,translation
studiesstartedtopayattentiontoculturalideologies,(post)colonialwritingin
translation,adaptationsandrewritings,andchildrensliteratureasfullyfledged
partsoftheliterarysystem.
AndrLefeverewasoneofthepersonsinvolvedintheculturalturn,sincehe
paidattentiontoconcreteculturalandsocialaspectsthataccompanyanddefine(the
receptionof)translatedliterature,likeconcepts,ideologies,persons,andobjects
belongingtoacertainculture(Lefevere,38).InLefeveresview,theliterarysystem
isgovernedbythreefactors:professionalswithintheliterarysystem,patronage,and
7
thedominantpoetics.Thepoeticsconsistamongstothersofliterarydeviceslike
genresandprototypicalcharacters.Naturally,thepoeticsofasourcecultureoften
differfromthoseofthetargetculture.Therefore,thetranslatorbuildsbridges
betweenthesourceandtargetcultureandstrikesabalancebetweenwhatis
consideredacceptablebybothcultures.Lefeverewasmostinterestedinthe
ideologiesthatarerevealedbytranslations.
Zohar,TouryandLefevereallstatedthattranslatedtextsareproductsofa
certaincultureandshouldbestudiedinthatculturalcontext,ratherthanontheir
linguisticmeritsandcharacteristicsalone.Asanunderstandingofthesourceculture
andknowledgeaboutthesourceauthorandsourcetextclearlyarevitalforagood
understandingofatext,IwillpayattentiontotheAmericansourcecultureand
sourceauthorofUTCinchapter1.Inchapter3,attentionwillbepaidtothetarget
culture.TheinformationbelowismainlytakenfrommyBAthesisUncleTomsCabin
adaptedforchildren,inwhichIstudiedAmericanadaptationsofUTCforchildren.
1.2SourceCulture
Withitsvehementrepudiationofslavery,UTCshookAmericansocietytoits
core.NineteenthcenturyAmericawasnotjustasocietywithslaves,butaslave
society.TheentireeconomyoftheSouthofAmericaheavilyreliedonthesystemof
slavery(Norton,331).Eventhoughin1776,TheDeclarationofIndependencehad
proudlydeclared:thatallmenarecreatedequal(Jefferson,688),thiscertainlydid
notleadtoeitheranimmediateoranabsoluteabolitionofslavery.Eventually,the
conflictbetweenNorthandSouthaboutslavery,whichwasstirredupgreatlybythe
publicationofUTC,grewintothemainsourceoftheCivilWar.
ThemainreasonwhytheSouthhadkeptslaveryintact,wasthatits
economicalsystemdependedonslavery.Overtheyears,theSouthevendevelopeda
worldviewthatjustifiedslavery.Apparently,somesouthernersdefendedslaveryin
practicaleconomicalterms.Besides,defendersofslaveryconsideredthesystemas
justifiableinbothbiblical,historicalandbiologicalterms.Theyinterpretedbiblical
referencestoslaveryasafreeholdandcommissiontoholdslaves.Inthesame
mannersomearguedthatslaverywasjustifiedbyitsageoldtradition.However,the
proslaveryargumentwasgroundedonstrongracism.Whitesclaimedtheywere
morally,physicallyandintellectuallysuperiortoblacks,andthattheirsuperiority
providedthemwiththerighttoenslaveblacks.GeorgeFitzhugh,acontemporary
sociologistfromtheSouth,defendedthisview:thenegroraceisinferiortothe
whiterace,andlivingintheirmidst,theywouldbefaroutstrippedoroutwittedin
thecaseoffreecompetition(Fitzhugh,311).Thus,fundamentalinequalitybetween
theraceswasthestartingpointofslaveholders.Fitzhughdismissedtheideaof
equality:Menarenotbornentitledtoequalrights.Itwouldbefarnearerthetruth
tosay,thatsomewerebornwithsaddlesontheirbacks,andothersbootedand
spurredtoridethem(Norton,331).Still,slaveholdersfelttheyhadamoral
obligationtowardsthepeopletheyowned.Forthatreasontheytookona
8
paternalisticattitudetowardsblacks,becausehewasbutagrownupchild,and
mustbegovernedasachild(idem).Paternalismonitsturnbecameaninstrument
thatjustifiedanddefendedslavery,becauseitcreatedtheimageofthecontented
black(Fitzhugh,311)anditsbenevolentmaster.
Thoughslaverywasnotabolisheduntilthe1860s,politicsonslaverydid
alreadychangeintheearly19
th
century.ThetensionbetweenNorthandSouth
sharpenedwhenthecontroversialFugitiveSlaveActwasissued,thatobligedfree
Northernersonaveryfeeblejudiciarybasistoreturnrunawayslavestotheirformer
Southernmasters.Abolitionistsunanimouslydeclaredtheacttobeashame,because
thefreeNorthcouldnolongerharbourfugitives.Still,thoughmostNortherners
resistedslavery,manysupportedtheAmericanColonizationSocietythatwas
foundedin1816.Thesocietyadvocatedgradualemancipationofslavesand
establishedthecolonyLiberia,wherefreedslavesshouldresettleandreformAfrican
society.Meanwhile,theslavepopulationyearlyincreasednaturally.Importationwas
nolongernecessary,andwasbannedbyCongressinthe1830s.Moreover,slaves
developedtheirownculturalconsciousnessandasenseofracialidentity.Asa
consequence,moreandmoreslavesrebelledtotheviolence,sexualharassmentand
salethatalwaysthreatenedthem.
In1860therepublicanAbrahamLincoln,wholaterbecameknownasthegreat
emancipatorofblacks,waselectedpresidentoftheUnitedStates.Thecontinued
existenceoftheUnitedStateswasatstakewhenSouthernstatesclaimedtheir
autonomyandindependencefromtheNorthandestablishedtheSouthern
Confederacy.TheCivilWarbrokeoutin1861,becauseNorthernandSouthernviews
onstateinstitutiondiffereddiametricallyandprovedirreconcilable.Or,asLincoln
putitinapersonalletter:Youthinkslaveryisrightandoughttobeexpanded;
whilewethinkitisawrongandoughttoberestricted.ThatIsupposeistherub
(Norton,378).OnJanuary1,1863,LincolnissuedtheEmancipationProclamation
thatfreedtheslavesintherebelliousSouth.In1865the13
th
amendmenttothe
constitutionbannedslaveryintheentireUnion.Assoonas1863,Lincolnstartedthe
Reconstructionofthewartorncountry.Itsgoalsweretwofold:toreformthesouth
andtosavetheunion.TheFreedmansBureauwasfounded,inordertopromote
blackemancipation.Itestablisheduniversities,churchesanddevelopedthe
sharecroppingsystem.However,duringthePresidentialReconstructionofJackson,
BlackCodesthatresembledformerSlaveCodeswerereintroduced.Violenceand
discriminationagainstblacksremainedwidespread.Thoughtheyreceivedsuffrage,
virtuallynoblackvoted.Inthetenyearsbetween1889and1909morethan1700
blackswerelynchedintheSouth.Thoughwhiteswerebynowinclinedtoacceptthat
AfroAmericanswereequal,theystillconsistentlyheldthatblackswerevery
different,andexpressedtheirfeelingsinthemotto:equal,butseparate.
Segregationlaws,thatseparatedwhiteandblackinpublic,becameknownastheJim
Crowpolicyandexistedtillthe1960s.
9
1.3SourceText
UTCwasnotpublishedinaculturalandliteraryvacuum.Beforeitwas
releasedasabookin1852,severalslavenarrativeshadalreadyprecededits
publication.HarrietBeecherStowehadreadFrederickDouglassautobiography,
titledNarrativeofthelifeofFrederickDouglass,AnAmericanSlave,writtenbyhimself
(1845).Douglasswasarunawayslaveofmixedblood;withhisexcellenteducation
andgreatintellecthewasanimportantrepresentativeoftheAntiSlaverySociety.
Hisoutspokennessandfierceattackonslaveryturnedhisbookintoabestsellerand
hebecameaspokesmanforabolitionism,makingseveraltoursthroughEurope.
AfterHarrietBeecherStowehadpublishedUTCshewasreprovedtohavewrittena
highlyfantasticalnovel.Inordertorefutethisassertions,shewroteAKeytoUncle
TomsCabin,inwhichshedescribedthesourcesofherbook.Stowemakesthelink
betweenUTCandDouglassnarrativeexplicit.Withregardtotheintelligenceof
George,andhisteachinghimselftoreadandwrite,thereisamostinterestingand
affectingparalleltoitintheLifeofFrederickDouglassabookwhichcanbe
recommendedtoanyonewhohasacuriositytotracetheworkingsofanintelligent
andactivemindthroughallthesqualidmisery,degradationandoppression,of
slavery(Stowe,24).Moreover,HarrietBeecherStowedrewherinspirationforthe
characterofUncleTomfromtheautobiographyofJosiahHenson:TheLifeofJosiah
Henson,FormerlyaSlave,NowanInhabitantofCanada.NarratedbyHimself.Stowewas
inspiredbytheslavenarratives,andbasedthecharactersinUTConreallive
characters,withwhomthereadingaudiencecouldalreadyhavebeenfamiliar.
Besides,theexistenceandgenreoftheslavenarrativeshowthatStowewasnotthe
firstwritertobringslaveryunderpublicattention.Still,itispracticallyimpossibleto
pinUTCdowntoacertaingenre.UTChascharacteristicsofmany,verydivergent
genres,asBettinaKmmerlingmakesclearinKlassikerderKinderundJugendliteratur.
SheexplainsthatUTCshowsinfluencesfromtheworkofCharlesDickenswhile
otherpassagestestifyvomEinflussdessentimentalenFrauenromansdes19.Jhs.S.
kompinierteElementeverschiedenerGenres(Familienroman,Zeitroman,Gothic
Novel)(Kmmerling,1032).Moreover,KmmerlingstatesthatUTCcanbereadas
areligiousnovel,becausesomecharactersaretypological.Inshort,HarrietBeecher
StowebasedthestoryofUTConslavenarratives,andmodelledthebookon
divergentgenres.
UTCwasthebestsellingAmericannovelfromthe19
th
century;inthefirst
yearafteritspublication300,000copiesweresold,whilemorethanamillioncopies
hadfoundtheirwaytothereadersbymid1853.AjournalistoftheLiteraryWorld
Noticewasastounded:TheUncleTomepidemicstillrageswithunabatedviolence.
Nocountryissecurefromitsattack.TheUnitedStates,GreatBritain,and,bythe
latestaccounts,GermanyandFrance,haveyieldedtoitsirresistibleinfluence.Noage
orsexisspared,menandwomenandchildrenallconfessitspower.Noconditionis
exempt;lordsandladies,flunkiesandkitchenmaids,areequallyinfectedwiththe
rage(356).
10
UTCwasperformedonstage,presentedindramaticreadings,andinspired
abolitioniststowritesimilarnovels.Itcertainlybroughtthemiseryofslaveryhome
toAmericanswhohadnevergivenmuchthoughtaboutit.However,notall
reactionswerepositive,andsouthernersweresorelyalarmedbythepopularity.On
the11
th
ofJune,1852,areaderofTheLiberatorexpressedhisconcerninaletter:The
enthusiasticabolitionfanaticsknowfullwellthatthegreatmassofthepeoplecannot
beinducedtolistentotheirmadravings,orreadtheiressays;theythereforeexpect,
throughcunninglywrittenfictions,toinstiltreasonousideas,andkeepupthe
agitationwhichhassolongdisturbedthepeaceofthepeopleofourfairlandhence
theactiveexertionstoscatterbroadcastoverthecountryMrs.Stoweswork.Inorder
tomeetthefallaciesofthisabolitiontale,itwouldbewellifthefriendsoftheUnion
wouldarrayfictionagainstfiction.Hisadvicewasfollowedup:fifteentotwenty
proslaverynovelswerepublishedinthefollowingyears.Areaderoftheproslavery
novelAuntPhillisCabinironicallyremarksinTheIndepent,on28October1852,that
thepicturesoftheintensehappinessoftheslavesaresoverycharming,thatone
wonderswhytheinventorsdonotmakehastetoselltheirchildrentotheslave
traders.
NowadaysUTChasgainedmythicalfeaturesandturnedintoaclassic.
Nevertheless,foritsdepictionofAfroAmericansithasbothbeenpraisedand
refuted.ModerncriticsspotlatentracisminStowesworkandnowadaysAfro
AmericansrefusetoidentifywiththemeekandhumbleUncleTom.Inthe1992play
IAintYoUncle:TheNewJackRevisionistUncleTomsCabin,RobertAlexanderwords
thecriticisminanironic,butverycreativemanner.CharactersfromUTCvividlycall
Stowetoaccount.WhydoesshenotallowGeorgeHarristocoolhisangerandto
shoottheevilslaveholderLegree?AndwhyisUncleTomsodreadfullymeek?
AlexanderpresentsUncleTomasamanwithanimageproblem(Otter,15),and
thuscriticisesStowesrepresentationofblacks.Nevertheless,inUncleTomsCabin
andAmericanCulture,ThomasGossettpointsoutthatlargescalecriticismofUTCdid
notoccurbeforeWorldWarII.Accordingtohim,AfroAmericanswereuntillshort
veryawareofthepositiveinfluenceofUTContheabolitionofslavery.Inthefaceof
thisconviction,itisunderstandablethatafullscaleattackupontheracialimageof
UncleTomamongblackswasalongtimecoming(Gossett,86).
WiththepublicationofUTCHarrietBeecherStowewantedtostrengthenthe
causeofabolitionism.Therefore,herbookaimedatreadersthroughoutallAmerica,
inordertoconvincethemofthehorrorsofslaveryandputthemtoaction.Though
shedidnotwritethebookforchildren,itwasreadaloudinmanyfamilies,with
childrenintheaudience.TheconcludingchapterXLV,ConcludingRemarks,
repeatedlyaddressesthereadersandmakesclearwhatreadingaudienceStowehad
inmind.ThereadersconsistofthemenandwomenofAmerica;fromthe
generous,noblemindedmenandwomenoftheSouthtotheNorthernmen,
Northernmothers,NorthernChristians;fromthebraveandgenerousmenofNew
Yorktoyeofthewideprairiestates(410).However,astimepassedby,UTC
primarilycametoberegardedasachildrensclassicinsteadofabookaimingat
11
adults.Nevertheless,BettinaKmmerlingdoesnothesitatetocountsuchabook,
thatoriginallyaimedatadults,amongchildrensclassics.DieKinderklassiker
umfassen()WerkederErwachsenenliteratur,dieentwederinkinderliterarischer
Bearbeitung(...)odermehroderminderunverndert(...)zuKinderbchern
gewordensind(x).UTCisaschoolexampleofcrosswriting:theadultsourcetext
wasadaptedtoanaudienceconsistingofchildren.
1.4SourceAuthor
HarrietBeecherwasbornonJune12,1811,inahugefamilyandcompound
householdthatconsistedofadozenchildren,servants,studentsandseveralmore
familymembers.HerfatherwasthepreacherLymanBeecher,whobroughthis
childrenupwithorthodoxCalvinism.Allofhissonsbecameparsons.Hedrick
describestheBeechersasalargefamilyofhighlyindividualistic,assertivesiblings
(93).AsayounggirlHarrietwaseducatedalongwithherbrothers,andhergenius
(Gossett,15)wasobservedbyLyman,andincomparisontoherbrothers,hewrote,
shewoulddomorethananyofthem(idem).AttheageofthirteenHarrietalready
taughtattheHartfordFemaleSeminary,thatwasfoundedbyheractivistsister
Catharine,whoferventlypleadedforwomenseducation.Afterhavingexperienced
areligiousandpsychologicalcrisis,Harrietstartedwritingherschoolfriends
pastoralletters.Sheexpressedtofeeladeep&peculiarinterestforthosewho
begantheirChristiancourse(Hedrick,41).However,whenHarrietwas21the
daysofteachingwereover.ThefamilymovedtoCincinnati,whereherlifewould
takeadecisiveturn.ForyearsHarriethadbeenwritinganabundanceoflettersto
familyandfriends,andproducedsocalledparlorliterature.Hedrickpointsoutthat
parlorliteraturewasanageoldphenomenon.Whilebookswerestillexpensive,
peoplegatheredintheirownhomesandsharedtheirliteraryproductions(76).In
CincinnatishejoinedtheliterarySemiColonClub.TheSemiColonsreadtheir
literaryproductionsaloudontheirweeklygatheringsthatwereamixtureofdance,
musicandreading.Soonherwritingsstartedtofindtheirwaytoliterarymagazines.
JoanHedrickremarksthatthecosyanddomesticoriginofStoweswritingwasof
greatinfluencetoherlaterwriting,asitallowedhertobuildupanintimate
relationshiptoheraudience(88),thatalsocharacterisesUTC.
WhenHarrietreachedtheageof22,herfriendElizaTylerdiedofcholera.
Stowestalentforpastoralcounselling,thatshehaddevelopedattheHartford
FemaleSeminary,wasnowappliedtothewidowerCalvinStowe.Calvinsoon
admittedthathemustbewithinreachofwomanslove,ormyownfeelingswill
suffocateme(96),anddeclaredhislovetoHarriet.InJanuary1838Harrietwasa
marriedwoman,andgavebirthtotwingirlsninemonthslater.Inthefollowing
years,domesticchores,childcare,pregnancies,andthetroublesomefinancial
managementoftheStowehouseholdabsorbedmostofherenergy.Inordertoraise
somemoneyHarrietwrotestoriesformagazines.Stillsheexpressedinalettera
slumberingdiscontentandalongingtouseherliterarytalentstothefullest:Ihave
12
aboutthreehoursperdayinwriting&ifyouseemynamecomingouteverywhere
youmaybesureofonething,thatIdoitforthepayIhavedeterminednottobea
meredomesticslavewithouteventheleisuretoexcelinmyduties(119).
Throughherwritingandpartlyduetoheractivistfamilymembers,Harriet
showedagreatsocialcommitment.Whenin1850theFugitiveSlaveActwaspassed,
Harrietsfierceprotestagainstslaveryawakened.Ifeelasifmyheartwouldburn
itselfoutingriefandshamethatsuchthingsare(205).HersisterIsabellapressed
hertouseherpenagainsttheaccursedthingslaveryis(207).Initially,Harriet
plannedtowriteafewshortsketchesfortheweeklyNationalEra,whichshebasedon
theexperiencesofescapedslaves.Theintendedsketchesexpandedtoamoving
serial,andtheserialbecamethenovelUncleTomsCabin.Whenthebookwasfinally
publishedin1852itsold10.000copiesinthefirstweek.Poems,songsandplayswere
createdthatwerebasedonUTC.AyearlaterAKeytoUncleTomsCabinwas
published,inordertodefendUTCagainstpeoplewhoheldthatthedescriptionsof
crueltiesagainstslavesweremerefiction.After1853Harrietmadeseveraltours
throughAmericaandEuropetoargueinfavourofabolitionism.Thoughshecalled
herselfdisdainfullyalittlebitofawoman(239),hernovelwokeAmericancitizens
upandforcedthemtochooseside.AfterthepublicationofUTC,Harrietcontinued
workingasaprofessionalwriterandrepeatedlyaddressedcontroversialthemes.The
MinistersWooing(1859)dealtwithreligionandCalvinism,whileTheTrueStoryof
LadyByronsWifecommentedonasexualscandal.Untilherdeathin1896,attheage
of85,shekeptwritingandpublishingbooksthathadaprofoundinfluenceon
society.
Chapter2.TheTranslationHistoryofUTCinDutch
2.1TheTranslationHistory:Why?
Translationhistoriesfunctionasbiographies:theytellthelifestoryofatextinits
translation.Atfirstsight,informationaboutpublishers,dateofpublications,known
andunknowntranslators,titles,numerouseditions,illustrations,anddeclarations
canappearasboringandirrelevantfactualknowledge.However,ifwellinterpreted,
atranslationhistorycanprovidevaluableinsightsinpubliccontemporaryopinions
aboutliteratureandthepositionoftranslationsinacertainliteraryfield.Afterall,
translationsneverappearinaculturalandliteraryvacuum,butarealwaysan
expressionandproductofacertainculture.Forthatreason,atranslationhistoryisa
helpfultoolthatcanshowwhatthemesandsortofbookswerepopular.Besides,a
translationhistorycanunravelhowaliteraryfieldwasstructured,andwhatthe
generalpolicywastowardsforeigntexts(andcultures).Whetheracultureshunned
orembracedforeigninfluences,whetheritacceptedinnovatingbooksorclungto
13
traditionalliterature,canberevealedbytranslationhistories.InthearticleEigen
vertoogeerst,ClemRobynsinterestinglyshowshowthepresenceorabsenceof
translations,asaproductfromaforeignculture,revealsinterestinginformation
aboutthegeneralattitudeofaculturetowardstheforeign(DenkenoverVertalen,
197208).Clearly,anadequateinterpretationandanalysisofatranslationhistorycan
leadtoabetterunderstandingofaliterarytext,aliteraryfield,andevenawhole
culture.
However,inanarticlethatwaspublishedintheDutchjournalforTranslation
Studies,Filter,IsabelleDesmidtshattershopesthatthemakingandinterpretingofa
translationhistorywouldbeaneasyjob.DesmidtusesRomanJakobsons
communicationmodeltomakeherpoint.Jakobsonstatedthatthebriefscheme
sender>message>receiverbasicallycanbeappliedtoeverycommunicativesituation.
Hisschemedescribestheinteractionbetweenthesenderandreceiverofamessage,
becausethereceivercanreturnamessagetotheinitialsenderandthusbecomea
senderhimself.DesmidtclaimsthatRomanJakobsonsclearcutmodel(sender>
message>receiver),ismorecomplexthanitsuggest.Sheusestheexampleof
translationsandadaptationstoshowthatthereceiverofamessagecanbecomea
newsenderinatotallydifferentculturalcontext.Clearly,translationsand
adaptationsareinherentlyrepetitive.Asaresult,itisnotalwaysclearwhothe
originalsenderwasandwhattheexactmessagewashesent(79,80).Anexample
fromthetranslationhistoryofUTCbelowcanmakethisclear.Obviously,Beecher
StowewastheoriginalsenderofUTCandtheAmericanpeopletheoriginal
receivers.Amazingly,thetranslationhistoryshowsthatatacertainmomentthe
sourcetextwasadaptedforchildreninItalianandtranslatedfromItaliantoDutchin
the1960s.Thiscomplextranslationprocessseemssuperfluous,astherealreadywere
tensofadaptationsforchildrenavailableinDutch.Becausethereisnotalwaysa
directlinebetweenthesourceauthorofatextanditsappearanceinatargetculture,
thesender,message,andthereceiverrespectively,itcanbedifficulttodrawany
validconclusionsfromatranslationhistory.Besides,Desmidtstatesthatthe
confusionabouttheinterconnectionofatranslationhistorycanbecomeevengreater
intheabsenceofunivocaldefinitionsofwhatactuallyisatranslationoradaptation
(83).
Desmidtmentionsliteraryclassicsandchildrensbooksasthetwogenresin
whichmostbooksare(re)translatedand(re)adapted,becausethesegenresare
consideredasacommonproperty(80).UTC,thatisbothaclassicandachildrens
book,hascertainlyhadnumeroustranslationsandadaptations,asthetablesbelow
willshow.
Inshort,atranslationhistoryisusefulandcanprovideinsightsinthewaysatext
functionedinaculture,providedonetakesinaccountthatthereisnotalwaysaclear
linkbetweenasourcetextanditstranslationsandthereforetakescarenottojumpto
theconclusions.
14
Table1belowcontainsanoverviewofthefirsteditionsoftranslationsofUTCin
Dutch,followedbyanextensiveoverviewofallDutcheditionsofUTCintable2.In
thesetablesthebasicsofthetranslationhistoryofUTCarerecorded,whilemore
detailedrecordsaboute.g.theratiobetweenintegraltranslationsandadaptationsfor
childrenwillfollowlater,alongsidewithananalysisofthetranslationhistory.
2.2Table1.OverviewofthefirsteditionsofUTCinDutch
SortofTranslation: AdaptationforChildren
IntegralTranslation
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Translator 1st
Edition
Publisher Series
Denegerhut:eenverhaaluit
hetslavenleveninNoord
Amerika
I C.M.Mensing 1853 A.C.
Kruseman
Eenkijkjeindehutvanoom
Tom
AC A.G.Bruinses 1853 VanDruten
&Bleeker
DehutvanoomTom,ofde
verschrikkingenvanhet
slavenleveninAmerika
AC JohanJacobAntonie
Goeverneur
ca.1881 A.W.Sijthoff
Denegerhut:het
slavenleveninAmerika,
voordeemancipatie
I B.Scholten 1890 C.Misset
DenegerhutvanoomTom
(translationofUncle
TomsCabintoldtothe
childrenbyH.E.Marshall)
AC NettyWeetjen 1909 H.J.vande
Garde&Co
De
mooiste
verhalen
DenegerhutvanoomTom
(partofomnibustitledin
hetsprookjesland)
AC ElisedeGraaf 1910
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC W.Christian Ca.1910 Jacobs
DenegerhutvanoomTom:
opnieuwbewerkt(the
adaptationresemblesthat
ofS.S.ofPublisher
Frenzo)
AC ? 191? s.n.
DehutvanoomTom:een
verhaaluitdenslaventijdin
Amerika,nzestigjaar
geleden
AC ? 1912 Hepkema&
Vander
Velde
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC S.J.Barentz
Schnberg
1914 H.J.W.Becht
DehutvanoomTom AC MariedeKoning 1922 Zonneschijn
Bibliotheek
Denegerhut I H.J.vanderMunnik 1925 J.M.Bredes

Boekhandel
enUitg.
15
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Translator 1st
Edition
Publisher Series
Hetnaaikransjeenandere
vertellingen(otherstories
are:Hetnaaikransje;
WillemTell;Dehutvan
oomTom)
AC HenkVerduin 1925 s.n. C.O.
Denegerhutvanoom
Tomenandereverhalen
(otherstoriesare:Dewijze
Hans;Dewinterkoningen
debeer).
AC H.C.J. 1930 Hecozet
DehutvanoomTom AC FriedavanFelden 1933 Meinema
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC C.vanRietschoten 193? Goede
Lectuur
DenegerhutvanoomTom
enandereverhalen(other
storiesare:Dezeeprinses;
Goedafgeloopen)
AC S.S.(mentioningthat
itisreadaptedby
S.S.)
193? Frenzo
DehutvanoomTom AC P.deZeeuw 1939 VanGoor Oud
Goud
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC J.deClercq 1940 Uitgeverij
Unitas
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC PietBroos 1943 Boekdrukke

rijHelmond
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC L.Kievits 1945 LaConcorde,

Brussel
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC W.Brugmans 1948 DeSleutel,

Haarlem
DehutvanoomTom AC H.vanHoorn 1950

DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ? C.1950 Wonderland
DehutvanoomTom:een
verhaal
uithetslavenlevenin
NoordAmerika
I JosWayboer 1952 Kramers
DehutvanoomTom AC AnkeMaris 1954 L.Opdebeek,
Antwerpen
DehutvanoomTom AC E.Verbraeken 1956 Standaard

boek
Klassie
kers
naverteld
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC HermanBroekhuizen
andJanvandenBerg
1956 Bowu De
Wereld
Jeugd
reeks
DehutvanoomTom AC MartinDeelen 1958 Classics
Nederland
Beroem
de
boeken
inwoord
enbeeld
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC A.vanMunching 195? VanGelder,
16
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Translator 1st
Edition
Publisher Series
(pennameofHans
Petrusvanden
Aardweg)
Antwerpen
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC W.Brugmans(this
ACwaspublished
earlierbyDeSleutel)
1959 J.H.Gottmer Juno
jeugd
pockets
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC JanMens C.1960 DeGellu
streerdePers
DehutvanoomTom AC D.Hauwertjr. 1964 D.A.P.

Reinaert
DehutvanoomTom AC FrancineSchregel
Onstein
1972 Kerco
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ? 1974 Amsterdam
Boek
Toppers
instrip
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ?naarItaliaanse
uitgave
1974 Lekturama Wereld
beroem
de
jeugdboe
ken
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ? 1977 Hemma Juniorbo
eken
club
DehutvanoomTom AC H.deBruijn 1979 VanGoor
Denegerhut(inan
omnibuswithAlleenopde
wereld)
AC NellyKunst 1980 OmegaBoek Omega
jeugd
boekerij
Jeugdomnibus(contains
a.o.DehutvanoomTom;
RobinHood;Aladinende
wonderlamp)
AC MarjaVos 1980 Ridderhof
DehutvanoomTom AC AlexanderdeKler 1984 EditoService
DehutvanoomTom AC AnneBogens 1984 Deltas
Klassiek
DehutvanoomTom AC AntheBarends 1987 Thieme

DehutvanoomTom AC L.Vogel 1991 DenHertog
DehutvanoomTom AC SusaHmmerle 1992 DeEekhoorn
DehutvanoomTom I ? 1993 Readers
Digest
DehutvanoomTom I ? 1999 Wolters

Noordhoff
Gouden
Lijsters
DehutvanoomTom AC EdFranck 2003 Davidsfonds
/Infodok,
Holkema&
Warendorf
DehutvanoomTom,ofhet
levenonderdeslaven
I TrisnatiNotosoeroto 2005 Athenaeum
Polak&Van
Gennep
17
2.3Table2.OverviewofallEditionsofUTCinDutch
SortofTranslation: AdaptationforChildren
IntegralTranslation
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Translator Year Nr.of
Edition
Publisher
Amerika I C.M.Mensing 1853 1 A.C.Kruseman
1854 2 A.C.Kruseman
1854 3 A.C.Kruseman
1854 4 A.C.Kruseman
1854 5 A.C.Kruseman
1854 6 E.&M.Cohen
1868 7 Brinkman
1879 8 Brinkman
1885 9 Brinkman
1886 10 Brinkman
1887
Mention
ingreprint E.&M.Cohen
1892
Mentio
ning10th
editonof
adaptation
byMensing E.&M.Cohen
1893 11 E.&M.Cohen
1897 12 E.&M.Cohen
1901 13 E.&M.Cohen
1915 20 E.&M.Cohen
1919 ? E.&M.Cohen
Tom AC A.G.Bruinses 1853 1
VanDruten&
Bleeker
1854 2
VanDruten&
Bleeker
1880 3
VanDruten&
Bleeker
1888 4
VanDruten&
Bleeker
1904 5 VanderStal
1910 6 Bolle
1915 7 Bolle
1921 8 Bolle
1926 9 Bolle
1932 10 Bolle
DehutvanoomTom,ofde
verschrikkingenvanhet AC
JohanJacob
Antonie
c.
1881 1 A.W.Sijthoff
18
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Edition
Publisher
slavenleveninAmerika Goeverneur
Denegerhut:hetslavenleven
inAmerika,voorde
emancipatie I B.Scholten 1890 1 C.Misset
1892 2 C.Misset
DenegerhutvanoomTom
(translationofUTCtoldto
thechildrenbyH.E.
Marshall) AC NettyWeetjen 1909 1
H.J.vandeGarde&
Co
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC W.Christian
Ca.
1910 1 Jacobs
DenegerhutvanoomTom:
opnieuwbewerkt(the
adaptationresemblesthatof
S.S.ofPublisherFrenzo) AC ? 191? 1 s.n.
DenegerhutvanoomTom
(partofomnibustitledinhet
sprookjesland) AC ElisedeGraaf 1910 1
DehutvanoomTom:een
verhaaluitdenslaventijdin
Amerika,nzestigjaar
geleden AC ? 1912 1
Hepkema&vander
Velde
191? 2
Hepkema&vander
Velde
191? 3
Hepkema&vander
Velde
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC
S.J.Barentz
Schnberg 1914 1 H.J.W.Becht
1925 2 H.J.W.Becht
1927 3 H.J.W.Becht
193? 4 H.J.W.Becht
DehutvanoomTom AC MariedeKoning 1922 1
Zonneschijn
Bibliotheek
Denegerhut I
H.J.vander
Munnik 1925 1
J.M.Bredes
BoekhandelenUitg.
1933 2
J.M.Bredes
BoekhandelenUitg.
1937 3 A.Voorhoeve
1937 4 A.Voorhoeve
Hetnaaikransjeenandere
vertellingen(het
naaikransje;dehutvanoom
tom;willemtell) AC HenkVerduin 1925 s.n.
WillemTellendenegerhut
vanoomTom AC HenkVerduin 1930 1 s.n.
DehutvanoomTomen
andereverhalen AC
?Henk
Verduin
Ca.
1933 1 s.n.
19
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Edition
Publisher
DenegerhutvanoomTomen
andereverhalen(other
storiesare:DewijzeHans;
Dewinterkoningendebeer). AC H.C.J. 1930 1 Hecozet
DehutvanoomTom AC
Friedavan
Felden 1933 1 Meinema
1935 2 Meinema
1939 3 Meinema
1949 4 Meinema
1950 5 Meinema
1951 6 Meinema
1954 7 Meinema
1958 8 Meinema
C.van
Rietschoten 193? 1 GoedeLectuur
DenegerhutvanoomTomen
andereverhalen(other
storiesareDezeeprinses;
Goedafgeloopen) AC S.S. 193? 1 Frenzo
DehutvanoomTom AC P.deZeeuw 1939 1 VanGoor
1948 5 VanGoor
1949 6 VanGoor
1950 7 VanGoor
1951 8 VanGoor
1953 9 VanGoor
1954 10 VanGoor
1955 11 VanGoor
1957 12 VanGoor
1960 13 VanGoor
1962 14 VanGoor
1965 15 VanGoor
1967 16 VanGoor
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC J.deClercq 1940 1 UitgeverijUnitas
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC PietBroos 1943 1
Boekdrukkerij
Helmond
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC L.Kievits 1945 1
LaConcorde,
Brussel
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC W.Brugmans 1948 1 DeSleutel,Haarlem
1950 2 DeSleutel,Haarlem
1959 3 J.H.Gottmer
A.vanMunching
(pennameof
HansPetrusv.d.
Aardweg) 195? 1
VanGelder,
Antwerpen
DehutvanoomTom AC
H.vanHoorn
(pennameof
HansPetrusvan 1950 1
20
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Edition
Publisher
denAardweg)
1979 2 Geka/Casterman?
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ?
C.
1950 1 Wonderland
DehutvanoomTom,een
verhaaluithetslavenleven
inNoordAmerika(jubilee
edition18521952,new
adaptation) I JosWayboer 1952 1 Kramers
1952 2 Kramers
1952 3 Kramers
1955 3 Kramers
1959 4 Kramers
1963 5 V.A.Kramers
1966 15 Kramers
1966 16 Kramers
1966 18 Kramers
1973 23 Kramers
1974 24 VanGoor
1975 25 VanGoor
1975 26 VanGoor
1975 27 VanGoor
1975 28 VanGoor
1976 29 VanGoor
1976 30 VanGoor
1977 31 VanGoor
1977 32 VanGoor
1977 33 VanGoor
1978 34 VanGoor
1978 35 VanGoor
1978 36 VanGoor
1979 37 VanGoor
1980 38 VanGoor
1981 39 VanGoor
1981 40 VanGoor
1982 41 VanGoor
DehutvanoomTom I JosWayboer 1988 42 VanGoor
1999 47 VanGoor
1999 48 VanGoor
2008 50 VanGoor
1990 44 VanGoor
1991 45 VanGoor
1995 46 VanGoor
DehutvanoomTom AC AnkeMaris 1954 1
L.Opdebeek,
Antwerpen
DehutvanoomTom AC E.Verbraeken 1956 1
Standaard
Boekhandel,Adam
21
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Edition
Publisher
DenegerhutvanoomTom
AC
Herman
Broekhuizenand
JanvandenBerg 1956 1 Bowu
DehutvanoomTom AC MartinDeelen 1958 1 ClassicsNederland
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC JanMens c.
1960 1
DeGellustreerde
Pers
DehutvanoomTom AC D.Hauwertjr.
1964 1 D.A.P.Reinaert
DehutvanoomTom AC
Francine
SchregelOnstein 1972 1 Kerco
1974 2 Ridderhof
2004 3 Solo
2007 4 Solo
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ? 1974 1 AmsterdamBoek
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ? 1974 1 Lekturama
DehutvanoomTom AC H.DeBruijn 1977 19 VanGoor
1972 17 VanGoor
1974 18 VanGoor
1977 20 VanGoor
1979 21 VanGoor
1979 22 VanGoor
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC ? 1977 Hemma
DehutvanoomTom AC AnneBogens 1984 1 DeltasKlassiek
1989 2 DeltasKlassiek
DehutvanoomTom AC AntheBarends 1987 1 Thieme
DehutvanoomTom AC L.Vogel 1991 1 DenHertog
1992 2 DenHertog
1994 3 DenHertog
1995 4 DenHertog
2001 5 DenHertog
DehutvanoomTom AC
Susanna
Hmmerle 1992 1 DeEekhoorn
DehutvanoomTom I ? 1993 1 Readersdigest
DehutvanoomTom I ? 1999 1 WoltersNoordhoff
DehutvanoomTom AC EdFranck 2003 1
Davidsfonds/
Infodok,Holkema&
Warendorf
DehutvanoomTom,ofhet
levenonderdeslaven I
Trisnati
Notosoeroto 2005 1
AthenaeumPolak&
VanGennep
2.4 TheTranslationHistory:anAnalysis
TheMethod
InthearticleIvanhoeendeverdwenenvertalingenJanvanGielkensdescribedthe
processofmakingatranslationhistoryoftheclassicIvanhoeinDutch.Hisaimwas
22
toshowthatBookStudiesinHollandisnotassurveyableasonemightexpectbythe
smallsizeofthecountry.HissearchondigitalcatalogueslikePicartaandthe
KoninklijkeBibliotheekalonealreadyresultedin73differenthits.Furtherresearch
however,madeclearthatsomeeditionsthatappearedasdifferentmentionsonhis
listofsearchresultsturnedouttobeoneandthesameedition.Besides,the
translationhistoryhebasedonthefindingsofofficialwebsitesstillcontainedlarge
gaps.Gielkenscomplaintwasclear:sourcematerialthatisnecessarytomakea
completetranslationhistoryisnoteasilyaccessibleandoftenincomplete.Gielkens
difficultieswithmakingupacompletetranslationhistoryofaclassicare
recognisable.Asearchwiththekeywordshutvanoomtomresultedin53hitsin
thedigitalcatalogueoftheKoninklijkeBibliotheek.Theircatalogueisagoodstartfor
researchonatranslationhistory,becausetheKoninklijkeBibliotheekownsan
extendedfileofbooksthatwerepublishedinTheNetherlandssinceitsfoundationin
1798.AfterthekeywordswerechangedtonegerhutvanoomTom,thesearch
resultwasalistofasmanyas80titles.SupplementedwiththefindingsonPicarta,
thebasicoutlinesofthetranslationhistorycouldbedrawn.However,eventhough
theKoninklijkeBibliotheekclaimstohavealleditionsofallbookspublishedinThe
Netherlands,thisfirstdraftstillcontainedlargegapswherenumbersofeditions,
namesoftranslators,orpublisherswerelacking.WiththehelpofBrinkmans
catalogusmostofthesegapscouldbebridged.
TheTranslations
From1853to2008,nolessthan49differenteditionsofUTChaveappearedin
Dutch.Apparently,IsabelleDesmidtsremarkthatclassicsandchildrensliterature
areoftenseenascommonpropertyistrueforUTC.Thoughthenovelwasoriginally
writtenforadults,itisnowprimarilyviewedascrossoverliterature;literaturethat
canbebothbereadbyadolescentsandadults.BettinaKmmerlingaptlydefines
thesebooksinherhandbookKlassikerderKinderundJugendliteratur:Die
Kinderklassikerumfassen()WerkederErwachsenenliteratur,dieentwederin
kinderliterarischerBearbeitung(...)odermehroderminderunverndert(...)zu
Kinderbcherngewordensind(x).OnthebasisofthedatainTable1itiseasyto
calculatethat42ofthe49editions(86%)werenotintegraltranslationsbut
adaptationsofthesourcetextthatspecificallyaimedatatargetaudienceofchildren.
LateronsomeattentionwillbepaidtothequestionwhatmadeUTCsosuitabletobe
adaptedforchildren.Ataglancethegraphicbelowvisualisesthesupremacyofthe
adaptationsforchildrenoverintegraltranslations.
23
0
2
4
6
8
10
N
r
.

o
f

1
s
t

E
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Year
1st Editions 1852-2008
Integral Translations Adaptations for Children
Nevertheless,though86%ofthe49editionsconsistedofadaptationsforchildren,the
14%ofintegraltranslationswerecomparativelymoresuccessful,astheyhadmore
reprints.ThegraphicbelowvisualisesthesupplyofalleditionsofUTCfrom1852to
2008.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
N
r
.

o
f

E
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Y
All editions 1852-2008
However,bothgraphicsalsotellaboutotherthingsthantheratiochildrens
adaptationstointegraltranslations.Asgraphic1shows,UTCwastranslatedinto
DutchsoonafteritwaspublishedintheUnitedStatesin1852:in1853.Clearly,the
firsteditionsheldamonopolyontranslationsofUTCinDutchforyears.Theintegral
translationbyC.M.Mensingthatwaspublishedin1853,wastheonlyintegral
translationsforfourdecades.NeitherhadA.G.Bruinsessadaptationforchildren
anyrivaltranslationsforaboutthirtyyears.Apparently,acenturylaterthiswasno
longerthecase.From1910onrivalrybrokeout:manypublisherstriedtogettheir
shareoftheclassicandthereappearedatleasttwoneweditionsofUTCevery
decade,asgraphic1shows.Possiblythecopyrightwasexpiredbythattime.The
24
1950sstandoutwitheightneweditionsofUTC,whiletherewasaregularsupplyof
neweditionsfrom19701999.Naturally,noteveryeditionofthe49couldbe
successfulandonlyafewhadoneormorereprints.Thetablebelowcontainsalistof
alleditionsthatwerereprinted.
Table3.NumberofReprints
Title Sortof
Trans
lation
Translator Publisher Nr.of
Reprints
Period
DehutvanoomTom,een
verhaaluithetslavenlevenin
NoordAmerika
I JosWayboer Kramers;Van
Goor
50 1952
1988/2008
Amerika
I C.M.Mensing Kruseman;E.M.
Cohen
21 18531919
DehutvanoomTom AC P.deZeeuw VanGoor 16 19391967
Tom
AC A.G.Bruinses VanDruten&
Bleeker;Bolle
10 18531932
DehutvanoomTom AC FriedavanFelden Meinema 8 19331958
DehutvanoomTom AC H.deBruijn VanGoor 6 19721979
DehutvanoomTom AC L.Vogel DenHertog 5 19912001
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC S.J.Barentz
Schnberg
H.J.W.Becht 4 1914193
?
Denegerhut I H.J.vander
Munnik
J.M.Bredes
Boekhandelen
Uitg.
4 19251937
DehutvanoomTom AC Francine
SchregelOnstein
Kerco;
Ridderhof;Solo
4 19722007
DenegerhutvanoomTom AC W.Brugmans DeSleutel;J.H.
Gottmer
3 19481959
Denegerhut:hetslavenlevenin
Amerika,voordeemancipatie
I B.Scholten C.Misset 2 18901892
DehutvanoomTom AC H.vanHoorn Geka/Casterman 2 19501979
DehutvanoomTom AC AnneBogens DeltasKlassiek 2 19841989
Thetableshowsthatonly14ofthe49differenteditionshadoneormore
reprints.Obviously,theother35werelesssuccessfulandonlyprintedonce.
Expressedaspercentages:29%ofthe49editionshadareprint,71%not.Evidently,
mostpublishersdidnotsucceedintheirattempttoprofitfrompublishingtheclassic.
Amainreasonmusthavebeenthatthemarketwassaturatedandthecustomerlost
hiswayaroundthemanifoldadaptationsofUTC.
Ofthe49editions,12books(24%)arepartofaseries,butthisdidnotensure
orinfluencethesuccessofthebook,astheonlyonethatwasreprintedwasP.de
ZeeuwsadaptationintheseriesOudGoud.
Thelastcolumninthetableaboveshowsinwhichyearthelastandfirst
editionofaparticularbookappeared.Itmakesclearthatthesuccessfultranslations
mainlyfollowedeachotherup,whiletheunsuccessful71%wererivaltranslations.
25
Besides,thesuccessfultranslationsallfunctionedforaconsiderabletime.Mensings
translationwasinuseforhalfacentury,from1852to1919.VanderMunniks
translationcouldhavefunctionedasaninbetweenuntilthepublicationof
WayboersUTC,thattooktheleadforthenextsixtyyears.Concerningthechildrens
adaptations,A.G.Bruinsestranslationwasregularlyreprintedoveraperiodof
eightyyears.Afterthat,FriedavanFeldenstranslationwasrelativelysuccessful
witheightreprints,butwasoverruledbyP.deZeeuwsadaptationthatwasdoing
remarkablywellforaboutthirtyyears.P.deZeeuwsadaptationwaspartofaseries
publishedbypublisherVanGoor,calledOudGoud.Intheseseriesheadapted
classicsforajuvenileaudience.H.deBruijntookoverhisroleastranslatorin1972.
From1979onwards,therewasnolongeronespecificadaptationforchildrenthat
tookthelead.ApartfromL.Vogelstranslation,alladaptationshadlessthanfive
reprints.Someoftheseadaptationsforchildrenwillbeanalysedindepthfurtheron.
Popularity
FromitspublicationonUTCcausedafloodofpositiveandnegativeresponses
allovertheworld.Readerswerecaughtbytheimpressiveandcatchingstory,andits
vehementsocialcriticism.LikeintheUnitedStates,UTCwasputonstageinThe
Netherlands.In1853,inthesameyearthefirsteditionofthetranslationbyMensing
waspublished,UTCwasperformedinTheHague,titledDenegerhut.Interestingly,
theplaywastranslatedoutofFrench,ratherthanEnglish.Itwasfollowedupbya
newplayin1854:DenegerhutvanoomTom:dramainachtbedrijven,writtenbythe
DutchCornelissenandBeems.Probably,someDutchpeoplehavenotbecome
acquaintedwithUTCinreadableform,butasaplay.Fromthe1900sonwardsUTC
wasadaptedforfilmwithsomeregularity,amongstothersin1914,1920,1928,1958,
and1986.OneofthereasonsUTChadmanyreprintscouldbethatitwasadaptedfor
playsandfilmsregularlyandpeoplecouldinthatmannerbeputonitstrack.Inthe
1960sKramerspublishedseveralspecialfilmeditionsofUTC,withaphotofromthe
filmonthecover.
OneofthereasonsUTCsoldsowellshortlyafteritwaspublishedinThe
Netherlandsmayhavebeenbecauseittouchedanerve.Thesocialcriticismofthe
novelandcondemnationofslaverycouldhavebeenconsideredrelevantbythe
readers,sinceslaverywasnotabolishedinTheNetherlandsuntilthe1880s.Thiswill
bedescribedinmoredetailinthechapteraboutthepoliticalhistoricalsituationin
theNetherlandsaroundthetimeUTCwaspublished.
AnotherreasonforthepopularityofUTCisgivenbyMarithaMathijsenasshe
mentionstheroleoftheMaatschappijtotNutvantAlgemeeninherbookabout
thepositionofliteratureinthe19
th
century,Hetliterairelevenindenegentiendeeeuw
(16).TheobjectiveoftheMaatschappijtotNut,whichwasfoundedbyaminister
in1748,wastocreateabetterandmoresocialsociety,bymakingagoodeducation
andpersonaldevelopmentavailabletomorepeople(16).Amongstothers,the
26
Maatschappijfocussedonsocialculturaleducationforadultsbyfoundingthefirst
freeorlowcostlibrariesintheworld.Peoplemadegooduseofthelibrariesandthe
MaatschappijsrecommendationofUTCmayverywellhaveenlargeditsreading
audience(17).Still,Mathijsenremarksthattheorganisationlargelyaimedat
Christiansandthereforefailedthereachsocietyinitswhole.However,whatthis
influentialorganisationcouldnot,UTCcould.InareviewofFatsoenlijkvertier,abook
whichwasrecentlypublished(2008)andthatdescribeshowthelowerclasses
enjoyedthemselves,therevieweroffhandedlyremarksthatUTCwasoneofthe
exceptionalbookswhichwereconsideredacceptablebyallgroupsinsociety.

TheTranslators
ThefirsttranslationofUTCwasmadebyanexperiencedtranslator:C.M.
Mensing.Inthesecondhalfofthe19
th
centuryMensingtranslatedtensofbooks,asa
searchonthedigitalcatalogueoftheKoninklijkeBibliotheekshows.Thoughmost
ofhistranslationsareoutofEnglish,heappearstohaveaccidentallytranslatedout
ofDanish,Swedish,FrenchandGermantoo.Mensingdedicatedhimselfto
translatingalmosttheentireoeuvreofCharlesDickensintoDutch.
C.M.MensingandJosWayboertranslatedthetwomostsuccessfulversionsof
UTC,thatwerereprinted21and50timesrespectively.Surprisingly,fromthesearch
resultsondigitalcataloguesWayboerappearsnottohavebeenanexperienced
translator,asUTCistheonlytranslationheproduced.
OppositetoJosWayboer,PietdeZeeuwwasanexperiencedwriterandadaptor
ofchildrensbooks.InthearticleGeenpreekjes,wleenboodschap,W.B.
KranendonkdescribeshowP.deZeeuwbecameadevotedwriter.Bornin1890ina
welltodofamily,hefollowedatrainingtobecometeacherandtaughthisownclass
onhisfourteenth.Initially,hewrotestoriesaboutkeymomentsorkeypersonsin
churchhistory,butlaterhealsobecamefamiliaroutsideChristiancircleswithhis
seriesOudGoud.UTCwaspartofthisseries,inwhichheadaptedclassicslike
RobinsonCrusoeandWilhelmTellforchildren.DeZeeuwabhorredpreachybooks,
butwasneverthelessconvincedthatchildrendeservedabookwithamessage.His
totaloeuvreconsistedofmorethan200titles.Inchapter6anindepthanalysisofhis
adaptationofUTCwillbemade.
A.G.BruinsesprovidedthefirstadaptationofUTCforchildren.Bruinseswas
herpenname,asshewascalledJ.J.Beckeringinreallife.Asatranslatorshefocussed
onchildrensbooks.ApartfromUTC,shetranslatedsomestorybooksforchildren
outofGermanandEnglish,andaccidentallyabookoutofFrench.GulliversTravels
wastheonlyotherclassicsheadapted.Sheadaptedandtranslatedatotalof17books
inthesecondhalfofthe19
th
century.HeradaptationofUTCwasthemostsuccessful
one.
FriedavanFeldenwrotesomechildrensbookswithidyllictitleslikeNans
zonnigezomerandAnnekeendeprinsesjes,amongstwhichUTCseemstofitinbadly.
However,shealsoadaptedthehistoricalnovelDeDelftsewonderdokter,writtenby
27
A.L.G.BosboomToussaint.Besides,shetranslatedaGermannovel.Sheworkedin
themiddleofthe20
th
century.
L.VogelstartedwritingChristianchildrensbooksafterhisretirement.From
1989onhewrote20childrensbooks.ApartfromUTChealsoadaptedtheclassic
RobinsonCrusoe.
Theothertranslators,whosetranslationshadlessthan5reprints,areleftout
ofconsiderationhere.Itisremarkablethatonlyoneofthetranslatorsofthe
successfuleditionsofUTCwasatranslatorbytrade,namelyC.M.Mensing.Apart
fromthat,mosttranslatorsoradaptorswerewritersofchildrensbooksthemselves.
Nevertheless,itisoftenunclearhowanovelthatdescribesthehorrorsofslaveryin
suchdetailasUTC,fitsintheiroeuvre.
ThePublishers
Ofthe48different1
st
editionsofUTCinDutch,44werepublishedbydifferent
publishers.Mostofthepublishingcompanies,however,nolongerexist:theyhave
beentakenover,wereincorporatedorwoundedup.
VanGoorclearlytooktheleadinpublishingtheunofficiallyauthorisedversionsof
UTC:P.deZeeuwsadaptationforchildrenandJosWayboersintegraltranslation.
VanGoorisasettledandinfluentialpublisherofchildrensbooksintheDutch
literaryfield.Sincearound1850theyhavepublishedchildrensbooksfromDutch
authors,andsomeclassics(Koster,69).ThepopularityandsuccessofvanGoors
editionsofUTCmaypartlybedeclaredbyitsfamiliaritytoDutchreaders.Brand
recognitioncanplayaninfluentialroleintheacceptanceofabook,especiallyifthere
areplentyoflesswellknowncompetitors.EventhoughVanGoorpublished
childrensbooks,itsintegraltranslationofUTCdoesnotpresentitselfasachildrens
book.Onthecoversofthe28
th
and39
th
editionthetextobviouslyaddressesadults.
UTCiscalledanepicofhumangriefandhumanlovethatshouldmakeus,
peopleofthepresentawareofthetruthofthestory.VanGoorapparentlytriedto
keepitstranslationsofUTCuptodate.Regularlythetranslationswererevised,and
inthe1970sP.deZeeuwsadaptationofUTCintheseriesOudGoudwas
replacedbyH.deBruijnsadaptation.
Specialeditions/Singularities
Astheinformationaboveshowed,UTCwasrarelytranslatedintegral.
Undoubtedly,eachadaptationwillrevealinterestinginformationaboutthechild
viewofthetranslator,hisworldviewandideasaboutthesourcetext.Asthereare
toomuchversionstolookatindetail,onlyfourofthemwillbeanalysedindepthin
chapter8.Still,thebasicdatainthetranslationhistoryalreadyregularlyreveal
interestinginformationandshowtherearesomespecialtranslations.Eventhough
therearetensofadaptationsforchildreninEnglishtoo,mostpublisherschoosetolet
aDutchwriteradapttheclassic.Sometranslations,however,reachedtheDutch
childreninaremarkablyroundaboutway.TakeD.Hauwertsadaptationfor
example.HetranslatedanItalianchildrensversionofUTCintoDutch.Inthesame
28
waySusaHmmerletranslatedUTCfromGerman.Twice,UTCwasadaptedtoa
comicbook,oncebyAlexanderdeKlerandonceintheseriesToppersinstrip.
ThetitleofUTChasbeentranslateddifferently:inturnsitwasoftencalledDe
negerhutvanoomTomorDehutvanoomTom.Fromthe1980son,neger
disappearedoutofthetitle,probablybecausethewordnowadayshasaderogatory
anddiscriminatingconnotation.
ItaretheomnibusesofwhichUTCispartthatreallysurprise.In1910an
omnibusappeared,titledInhetsprookjesland.UTCwasoneofthefairytalesit
contained.Apparently,itwasquitecommonforadaptersofUTCtomisunderstand
itsgenreandtotakeitforafairytaleorjustasweet,harmlessstory:in1925itwas
partofabooktitledHetnaaikransjeenanderevertellingenandinthe1930sitwas
adaptedbyS.S.andpublishedinabookwithotherstoriesthatweretitledDe
zeeprinsesand,ironically,Goedafgeloopen.In1980itwaspublishedinan
omnibuswithRobinHoodandthefairytaleofAladin.ThemerryomnibusesUTC
ispartof,leadonetosuspectthattheauthorsdidtakesomelibertieswiththeharsh
endingofthestoryandtheviolencethatisdescribedinit.Throughtimepeoplemay
havestoppedtothinkofUTCasanovelfullofsocialcriticismand,instead,started
toviewitwithanostalgicfeeling.
InShort
Thetranslationhistorystillcontainsgaps,mainlybecausenotalleditionswere
notedinPicartaandthedigitalcatalogueoftheKoninlijkeBibliotheek.Though
BrinkmansCatalogusprovidedamorecompleteoverviewofalleditionsofUTC,
someeditionssimplyseemnottohavebeenregistered.Between1901and1915,for
example,editions14to19ofMensingstranslationmusthavebeenpublished,but
theyarenotgiven.NeitheraretheeditionsofP.deZeeuwsUTCdatedthatwere
publishedbetween1939and1948,duringwartime.Nowandthen,publishers
sordidlydonotmentionthetranslator.Unfortunately,thatisnotjustthecasewith
booksthatappeareddecadesago,asvanGoorsnewesteditionofUTCshows.More
omnibusesthanregisteredmayincludeanadaptationofUTC,asthetitleofan
omnibusnotalwaysmakesclearwhichstoriesitcontains.
Thoughcompleteempiricalaccuracyseemsnotwithinreach,themissingout
ofsomeeditionsdoesnotmakeitimpossibletodrawvalidconclusions.Clearly,
UTCwasseenasacommonpropertymanypublisherstriedtogettheirshareof.
85%ofthefirsteditionsoftranslationsinDutchaimedatchildrenandaccordingly
overruledtheintegraltranslations.However,theintegraltranslationshadmore
reprintsandmostlyfollowedeachotherup,whiletheadaptationsforchildrenwere
fiercerivals.Thoughtherearenoofficialorauthorisedtranslations,obviously
someweremorepopularthanothersandhadremarkablenumberofreprints.One
couldsaythatC.M.MensingsandJosWayboersintegraltranslationsandA.G.
BruinsessandP.deZeeuwsadaptationsforchildrenwereauthorisedunofficially.
SomeofthesemostinfluentialadaptationsofUTCwillbeanalysedindepthina
29
furtherstage.Ithasbecomeclearthatalotofpublishersandtranslatorstriedtheir
handatUTC,whichsometimesresultedinremarkableeditions.Obviously,abook
thathasthereputationtohavestartedthebloodiestwarinAmericanhistorycan
smoothlybeadaptedtoafairytale.
Chapter3.Politics&SocietyinHolland
3.1 TheAbolitionofSlaveryinHolland
UnliketheUnitedStatesofAmerica,TheNetherlandswerenotaslavesociety.
Onthecontrary,eventhoughHollandcontrolled5%oftheslavetradeandshipped
anestimateof550.000Africansintoslaveryfrom1500to1850,slaveryitselfwas
practicallynonexistentinTheNetherlands.However,onDutchcoloniesinSurinam,
theDutchEastIndies,ArubaandtheNetherlandsAntilles,slaverywasacommon
thing.MostslavesworkedonplantationsinSurinamwheresugarcane,coffeeandtea
weregrown.TheNetherlandsAntilleswereanimportanttransitportfortheslave
trade:112.000slavesweretradedonCuraao.
IntheUnitedStates,slaverywasvisibletoeverybody.Itwaspartofsociety.
Eventhoughsomeslaveholderstreatedtheirslavesbadly,theywereboundby
socialandlegalrestrictions(Gomes,9).Thesystemofpaternalismmadetheslave
ownerresponsibleforthephysical,mentalandreligiouswellbeingofhisslaves.The
organisationofDutchplantationsinSurinamdidnotresemblesocialfamily
structures.Ontheopposite,theplantationsweremanagedbyasmallgroupofwhite
menwhostayedinSurinamtemporarily.Becausesocialcontrolwasabsent,Surinam
slaverywascharacterisedbyexploitation,sexualabuse,crueltyandahighdeath
rate,ratherthanpaternalism(9).Englishofficialswerestunnedbythescaleofthe
crueltiescommittedagainstslaves.Itwasundertheirinfluence,thatDutch
governmentbegantomakeinquiriestothelivingcircumstancesofslavesand
graduallystartedtotakemeasuresthatwouldfinallyleadtoabolition.
JustlikeintheUnitedStates,Dutchslaveownersjustifiedslaverybystating
thatblackswereinallrespectsinferiortowhites.Generally,blackswereconsidered
tobelesscivilised,heathenish,lazyandlecherousandthereforeinneedofwhite
control(78,151).Evenabolitionistsfeltsuperiortoblacksandthoughtawhiteskin
representedcivilisation.Theyadaptedapaternalisticattitudeandoftenregarded
blacksaschildrenanddescribedthemintermsthatwouldbeconsidered
discriminatingandderogatorynowadays(1445,152).Nevertheless,abolitionists
wereconvincedblackshadthepotentialtodevelopthemselvesandbecomeas
civilisedaswhites.
Underpressureofreligiousgroupsandliberalthinkers,GreatBritainwasthe
firstEuropeancountrytoabolishtheslavetradein1807.Bymeansoftreatiesand
30
lobbyiststheBritishmanagedtopushotherEuropeancountriestoabolishtheslave
tradetoo.In1814,theDutchsignedatreatythatendedtheslavetrade,butitstill
tookhalfacenturybeforeslaveryitselfwasabolishedin1863(Dossierafschaffing
slavernij1863).AtthatmomentDutchslaveholdersownedapproximately45,000
slaves(Kuitenbrouwer,33).GijswijtexploredwhyTheNetherlandswereoneofthe
lastEuropeancountriestoabolishslavery.SheexplainsthattheNetherlandstookin
aconservativepositioninEuropeandwerelessstampedbyhumanitarian
EnlightenmentprincipleslikeequalityofallhumanbeingsasotherEuropean
countries.Apartfromthat,theaverageDutchpersonwasunawareofthehorrorsof
slaveryandslavetrade,astheytookplacefarfromhome.Besides,becausetheDutch
abolitionistswereinternallydivided,theydidnotmanagetomobilisepeopleonsuch
ascaleashadhappenedinEnglandandthustoforcethegovernmentintaking
measurestowardsabolition.Moreover,theDutchalsohadaneconomicinterestin
thecoloniesandslavery,andtheinfluentialslaveholdersthwartedtheabolitionfor
decades.Lastly,theindustrialrevolutionthatreplacedworkerswithmachinery,
beganlaterinTheNetherlandsthaninsurroundingcountries(810).
GijswijtshowsthatslaverywasgraduallyabolishedinTheNetherlandsand
thatthequestionthegovernmentdisagreeduponwasnotifslaveryoughttobe
abolished,butratherhowitshouldbeabolished(24,25).Theabolitionofslaveryby
TheNetherlandshadbecomeinevitableafterpowerfulEnglandandFrancehad
takentheinitiative.Besides,thenumberofslavesintheWestIndiesdecreased
alarminglyasaresultofthebadtreatmentofslaves,thelowbirthrateandmany
escapes(26).RumoursofslaverebellionsaftertheabolitionsbyEnglandandFrance
pressedthegovernmenttorethinktheissueofslavery.Apartfromthat,economical
motivesstimulatedthegovernmenttotakemeasures,asmanycolonieshadbecome
insolvent.ItwasnotfornothinganEnglishlobbyistforabolitionspecifically
rememberedtheloveofDutchmenfortheMoneypartoftheStoryafteravisitto
TheNetherlands(Janse,56).Around1850thepublicopinionchangedinfavourof
abolition.MainreasonswerethegruellingwitnessaccountsofslaveryintheDutch
colonies,ferventlobbyingofEnglishabolitionists,andthepublicationofUTC.With
renewedvigourtheabolitionistssignedpetitionsandpleadedforabolition.Janse
statesthattheseprotestswereawaytoexpressandmitigatethefeelingsofguilt
peopleexperiencedaboutslavery.Debehoeftepubliekelijkafkeertetonenvande
gruwelenvandeslavernij,vormeneenuitdrukkingvandegevoelensvanonbehagen
enschulddiehetvoortbestaanvanslavernijindeeeuwvanvooruitgangopriep
(119).In1853governmentdeclareditsintentiontoabolishslavery.Atlonglast,after
adecadeofpoliticaldebateanddiscussion,slaverywasabolishedin1863.However,
toreimburseslaveholdersforthefinanciallosses,theslaveswereobligedtoremain
workingfortheslaveholdersforasmallfeeforanothertenyears.Theslaveholders
received300guildersperslaveasafinancialcompensationfortheirabolition.
31
3.2 TheInfluenceofUncleTomsCabin
UnlikeEnglandandFrance,TheNetherlandsdidnothaveastrongabolitionist
movementthatmanagedtomobilisepeopleofallsociallayersagainstslavery.In
1840theMaatschappijtotbevorderingvandeafschaffingderslavernijwas
founded(Gijswijt,24).Itfailedtobecomeinfluential,becausetheChristianand
liberalmemberswereinternallydivided.TheEnglishabolitionistministerMiller
criticisedthepoliticallyineffectiveattitudeofDutchabolitionistChristiansandtheir
refusaltocooperatewiththeliberals:WhymaketheAntiSlaverySocietyasectarian
society?OnyourprincipleyoumustconvertallHollandtoEvangelicalChristianity,
beforeyoucaneffecttheEmancipationoftheslaves(Janse,61).Besides,theDutch
abolitionistsobeyedtherequestofthegovernmentnottodisturbthepublicorderin
TheNetherlandsandtheDutchcolonies,becausetheydidnotwanttogivecauseto
slaverebellions(73).Thus,before1850,onlyaminorityoftheDutchconcerned
themselveswithslaveryanddedicatedthemselvestoabolition.From1850onwards,
however,thetideturned.Therearemanyindicationsthatitwasthepublicationof
UTCthatdrewtheattentionofthepubliconslaveryandchangedpublicopinionin
favourofabolition(Janse,53).LikeinAmericaandotherEuropeancountries,UTC
wasanimmediatesuccessinTheNetherlands.Inthetwoyearsafteritspublication,
UTCwasreprintedsixtimesandanadaptationforchildrenappeared.Thisstormy
receptionwasindicativeoftheinfluencethebookwouldhave.
AfterthepublicationofUTC53brochuresappearedthatarguedinfavourof
abolition(Kuitenbrouwer,39).AbolitionistregularlyexplicitlyreferredtoUTCinthe
titleandcontentoftheirbrochures.Clearly,theyassumedtheirreadingpublicwas
familiarwithUTCandtheyhopedareferencetoUTCwouldincreasetheirreading
audience.In1853JulienWolberspublishedabrochuretitled:Deslavernijin
Surinam,ofdezelfdegruwelenderslavernij,dieindeNegerhutgeschetstzijn,
bestaanookinonzeWestIndischekolonin!(Janse,101).Ayearlater,amemberof
parliament,vanHovell,wrotetheinfluentialbookSlavenenvrijenonderde
Nederlanschewet,whichwascomparedtoUTC(Janse,101).Withmanifoldexamples
ofthecrueltyandexcessesofDutchslaveryhemadeanappealtotheconscienceof
thereaders.
Ikrekendehetmijtotpligt,zoomogelijkeenealgemeeneverontwaardigingop
tewekkentegendeslavernij;ikwenscheennationalenkruistogttegenhaar
voortdurendbestaanintleventeroepen;ikwenschzulkeenafschuwvoordie
instellingbijhetNederlanschevolkteweegtebrengen,dathare
instandhoudingnietmeermogelijkzij(Janse,118).
Inhisbook,vanHovellpresumedthereadersfamiliaritywithUTC.He
sarcasticallycommentedonthereaderscriticismofAmericanslavery,whileatthe
sametimeslaveryintheDutchcolonieswaskeptintactandtrivialised.Besides,he
claimedtheDutchslaverysystemwasascruelandunsustainableastheAmerican.

32
HebtgijUncleTomsCabingelezen?Maarwelkeenvraag!Wieheeftdatboek
nietgelezen?Gijzijtverontwaardigdoverdetooneelen,diedaarinworden
geschilderd,engijdenktonwillekeurigaanonzekolonin,vooralaan
Suriname!Maarbekommeruniet;detoestandderslavenisdaar,ondereen
Nederlandschbestuur,vrijwatdragelijkerengelukkiger,dandiehunner
beklagenswaardigelotgenooteninAmerika.()Opdezeendergelijkewijze
trachtmenhetgewetenderNederlandschenatie,zoodrahetontwaakt,weder
inslaaptesussen(48).
VanHovellsbookaboundswithdetailedexamplesoftheilltreatmentofslaves,of
whichtheexamplebelowisrepresentative.
Ditallesistegenhetreglementvan1851,dusonregt.
Maardatreglementgeeftdebevoegdheidtoteene
vaderlijketuchtigingaanjeugdigeslavenbenedende
14jaren.Watisdit?Deeigenarenbeschouwendenzin
dierwoordenalsgrenzenloos.Devaderlijke
tuchtigingwordtgewoonlijkmetdezweepofeen
eindtouwuitgeoefend.Nietzeldenzietgijvreesselijk
mishandeldekinderenrondloopen.Zoonamopden
8
sten
September1852een,doordenheerR.opde
afschuwelijkstewijzegemartelde,jongenzijntoevlugt
inhethtelvandenGouverneur.Hijwas13of14jaar
oudenvangemengdbloedof,gelijkmenhetnoemt,
eenkleurling.Zijnmeesterhadhemaaneenboom
opgehangen,enmeteeneindtouwzoodaniggeslagen,
dathetganscheligchaammetwondenoverdektwas.
OplastvandenGouverneur,werdeenegeregtelijke
vervolgingtegendenheerR.ingesteld.Hetbleek,dat
demisdaadvandenjongenbestondin.....hetlanguitblijvenbijhetverrigten
vaneeneboodschap!Hijhadeenrijtuigmetvierpaarden,eenvoorhem
vreemdverschijnsel,zienvoorbijrijden,enhaddaarnaarstaankijkenenzoo
zijntijdverbeuzeldzijnestrafkennenwij.DeheerR.werdveroordeeld;zijne
strafwas.....eenegeldboete!(79)
Thoughslaveholderswereboundbylegalrestrictions,vanHovellkeptstressing
thatslaveownerssetthelawatnaughtintheilltreatmentoftheirslaves.Often,he
cynicallyremarkedontheillfunctioningofthelaw:ZijtgealsNederlanderniet
trotschopzulkeeneNederlandschewet?(60)VanHovellsmethodindenouncing
slaverywaseffective.Thereaderswereshockedbythedescriptionsofthesuffering
oftheslaves:BijhetlezenvandegruwelenderslavernijinSurinam,()wordthet
bloedvanverontwaardigingdoorhetaangezichtgejaagd(Janse,101).Reactionslike
thesewerewhatvanHovellhadhopedfor.VanHovellandotherabolitionist
33
showedthattheactivatingmessageofUTCalsoappliedtotheDutchsituationand
thatreaderscouldnotremainneutral.TherealisticdescriptionsofslaveryinUTC
andinabolitionistbrochureslikeSlavenenvrijengreatlyunnervedpeopleandmade
themwillingtoorganisethemselvesandtakeaction.
TheprotestantcivilservantGefkensreestablishedtheNederlandsche
MaatschappijterBevorderingvandeAfschaffingderSlavernijafterhehadread
UTC.HestressedthatUTCstruckasympatheticnoteandmadethehorrorsand
injusticeofslaverycleartohimandotherreaders.HetwerkvanMistressBeecher
Stowehadveeltoegebrachtomhetstelselderslavernijinalzijneafschuwelijkheidin
eenhelderdaglichttestellen.Hetvondweerklankinveleharten(91).Eventhough
youngpeopleandwomenwereexcludedfrompoliticalprocessedanddeniedthe
righttovote,theydidorganisethemselvesinabolitionistmovements.In1855
womenfoundedaDutchequivalentoftheEnglishFemaleAntiSlaverySociety(103)
andtheoverallnumberofmembersoftheDutchabolitionistsocietygrewrapidlyin
the1850s.In1853apetitionforabolitionwassignedbyanunprecedentednumber
of200,000people.Thefactthatfrom1853on,amajorityofthegovernment
supportedabolitionforthefirsttime,showedthatabolitionistscouldbefoundinall
layersofsociety(Gijswijt,27).
Inshort,thepublicationofUTCgaveastrongimpulsetotheweakabolitionist
movementofTheNetherlands.Intheyearsfollowingitspublication,quiteanumber
ofbooksandbrochuresappearedthatweremodelledonUTC.Theymadereaders
awarethatslaveryintheDutchcolonieswasasgruellingandunsustainableas
slaveryinAmerica.Asaresult,arecordnumberofpeoplejoinedabolitionist
movementsandsignedpetitionsinfavourofabolition.Thus,likeinAmerica,UTC
broughtslaveryhome.
Chapter4.WritingandTranslatingforChildren
4.1ABookforWhom?
In1890,CharlesEdwardStowepublishedTheLifeofHarrietBeecherStowe,a
biographyabouthismotherslife.HedescribeshowthefirstaudienceofUTCwere
children:Harrietsownfamily.HismotherreadoutmanypartsofUTCtoherfamily
beforeshepublishedthestory.CharlesEdwardparticularlyrememberedhowhis
motherreadaboutUncleTomsdeath:Gatheringherfamilyabouthersheread
whatshehadwritten.Hertwolittleonesoftenandtwelveyearsofagebrokeinto
convulsionsofweeping,oneofthemsayingthroughhissobs,Oh,mamma!slavery
isthemostcruelthingintheworld(148,149).HarrietBeecherStoweadmitted
herselfthatthefirstaudienceofUTCconsistedofchildren.Thefirsteditionfor
childrenofUTC,APeepinUncleTomsCabin,containedanAddressoftheAuthor
34
()tothechildrenofEnglandandAmerica(iv).Init,BeecherStowetellsthe
juvenilereadersaboutthestory:Longbeforeitwaseverwrittendownatall,itwas
toldtoacircleofchildren,andthen,asfastasitwastoldtothem,itwaswritten
down;andtherewasagreatdealoflaughingandcryingamongthesechildren,you
maybesure,andagreatdealofhurryingthatitmightbegotthroughwith.Soyou
seethestorybelongstochildrenveryproperly(iv).
ThoughHarrietBeecherStowetestedUTCoutonherownfamily,herdesignwas
nottopublishachildrensbook,buttowriteanovelthatwouldmakethewhole
nationfeelwhatanaccursedthingslaveryis(146).Nonetheless,afteritspublication
thebookwasreadaloudinwholefamilies,childrenofallagesincluded.From
shortlyafteritspublicationonwardsuntiltodayspecialchildrenseditionsofUTC
startedtoappear.Clearly,UTChasheldagreatattractiontochildrenandadults
alike.BettinaKmmerlingpointsoutthatUTCisnowprimarilyregardedasa
childrensbook.NichtnurinDeutschland()hatsichdabeiderStatusvonUncle
TomsCabinalsKinderbuchdurchgesetzt,obwohldieAutorinkindlicheLesernicht
vonvornhereininsAugegefassthat(10334).Thewayinwhichthetargetaudience
ofUTChaschanged,raisessomeinterestingtheoreticalquestionsaboutthenatureof
childrensliteratureingeneralandtherelationbetweenchildrensliteratureand
literatureforadultsspecifically.InapopularscientificarticletheFlemishwriterand
translatorBartMoeyaertwordstheviewthatthereisnointrinsicdifferencebetween
childrensliteratureandliteratureforadults(235237).Herevilesthestricttraditional
classificationofbooksaseitherchildrensliteratureoradultliterature.ZoharShavit
however,acknowledgesandrecognisesthisdenialofthesupposedspecialstatusof
childrensbooks,butmaintainsthereisadifference.However, despitethe explicit
denial of the special status of children's literature, it cannot be denied that writers for children
do write within the frameworkof constraints imposed on the system due to the specific
addressee (41).PeterHuntalsoacknowledgestheargumentsthathaveledpeopleto
statethatchildrensliteraturedoesnotexist.LikeShavit,hedefinesitintermsofthe
reader.
...itcannotbedefinedbytextualcharacteristicsofstyleorcontent,andits
primaryaudience,thechildreader,isequallyelusive.(...)Allofthissuggests
aspeciesofliteraturedefinedintermsofthereaderratherthantheauthors
intentionsorthetextthemselves(Oittinen,61,2005).
Childrensliteraturemainlydistinguishesitselffromgrownupliteratureinits
concurrencewiththecognitivedevelopmentofchildrenandthewayitfitsinwith
theirenvironment.
4.2WhywasUTCAdaptedforChildren?
NomatterhowmuchthesillyDonQuichot,thebraveRobinsonandhumble
UncleTom,theprotagonistsfromDonQuichot,RobinsonCrusoeandUncleToms
35
Cabinrespectivelymayhavediffered,theymetthefateofmanyclassicsandwere
adaptedforchildren.RitaGhesquiereexplorestherelationbetweentheadultcanon
andchildrensliteratureandnoticesadultliteraturewasoftenadaptedforchildren
afteritlostitsstatusandattractivenessforadults(71).Inanarticleaboutliterary
adaptationsforchildrenQuirinvanOscallsthesebookszinkendcultuurgoed
(165).ThisisnotthecasewithUTChowever,becauseitsfirstadaptationforchildren
appearedshortlyafteritspublication.Naturally,classicsandUTCarealso
adaptedforchildrenforcommercialreasons(Ghesquiere,80).Ghesquierestatesthe
adaptationsofRobinsonCrusoesprangfromtheeducationalmotivesofadaptors(71).
Indeed,UTCcansetsomeexemplarycharactersasanexampletochildrenandquite
someaspectsofthenovelmadeUTCsuitabletobeadaptedforchildren.Janvan
Coilliementionsseveralfunctionsofchildrensbooks.Acomparisontothefunctions
ofUTCprovidesaninterestingpointofviewthatcouldhelpdeclaringwhythenovel
wasadaptedforchildrentimeandagain.
Firstly,vanCoilliementionstheentertainingfunctionofabook(17,1999).
Thisfeelgoodaspectofbooksisveryimportanttochildren,butvanCoilliealso
statesthatthisrelaxationcanbebroughtaboutthroughdifferentmeans,since
humour,suspense,fantasyandemotionsinabookcanallbeentertaining.Van
Coilliecallshumourandsuspensetheseducersofchildrensliterature(95).
Obviously,UTChassomeofalltheserelaxingaspectsandagooddealofhumour
andsuspense.ThestoryaboutElizaandGeorgesescapeisextremelyexciting,
whereasthepickaninnyTopsybringsinagoodsenseofhumour.Herbehaviour
regularlyresultsinslapsticklikepassages,whichhaveastrongappealtoyoung
children(97).Adolescentsmayprefertheironicpassagesinthebook,whichyounger
childrenfailtorecogniseandappreciate(97).Besides,thestoryhasastrong
emotionalimpact,becausethesympatheticprotagonistssharedeeplove,experience
bittergriefandsufferheavylosses.
Secondly,bookscanstimulatethefantasyandthushaveacreativefunction
(18).Clearly,UTCisnotafantasystory,afairytaleoramyth.However,thestory
lineisnotpredictableeitherandwillstimulatethecuriosityofthereaders.Besides,
forDutchreaders,UTCsurpassestheboundariesofculturesandsocial
environments,asitdescribes19
th
centuryAmericancultureandthelivesofslaves.
Thebookstimulatesthefantasyandimagination.
Asathirdfunctionofbooks,vanCoilliementionstheemotionalaspectof
reading(19).Whilereading,readerscanexperienceawiderangeofemotions
becausetheyempathisewithoridentifythemselveswiththeprotagonists.Insucha
manner,bookscanhelpreaderstocometotermswithproblems,painfulexperiences
orexcitingnewemotionslikebeinginlove.UTCdoeshaveastrongemotional
function.HarrietBeecherStowefeltthatbecauseofslaveryherheartwouldburn
itselfoutingriefandshamethatsuchthingsare(Hedrick,205)andshewantedto
passthatindignationandawarenessoftheinjusticeofslaveryontoherreaders.
Apartfromthat,theprotagonistsfindthemselvesinextremelyharshsituations.
Continually,theirlifeisthreatenedbyauctions,violentslaveownersandslave
36
hunters.Aboveall,thefamilylifeofthecharactersisinconstantdanger.Thoughthe
environmentofyoungreadersisoftenrelativelysmall,theywillbeabletoidentify
withtheprotagonistsintheirtrytokeeptheirfamiliesintact,becausetheybelongto
afamilytooandmayhavebeenconfrontedwithitsvulnerability.Indeed,itwould
behardforareadernottoempathisewiththeprotagonistsandbecomeemotionally
involvedwhilereadingUTC.
Fourthly,bookscanhaveaninformativefunction.Encyclopediasand
referencebooksprimarilyhaveaninformativefunction.Infiction,writerscangive
historicalinformationinbetweenthelines,asinUTC.Inanaturalmanner,the
readerbecomesfamiliarwiththeargumentsoftheabolitionistsandtheslaveowners
andthepoliticalsituationin19
th
centuryAmerica.BeecherStoweslivelywriting
stylepreventedthenovelfrombecomingahistorybook.
VanCoilliementionstheeducationalvalueasthefifthfunctionabookcan
have(20,21).Booksgivemoralstability,becausetheycanplayanimportantrolein
theprocessinwhichchildrenandadolescentsadapttoacertainculture.Assuch,
bookschallengechildrentoformtheirownopinionabout(cultural)values.
Interestingly,vanCoillieremarksthatbooksforadolescentsoftenareconfronting
andforcethereaderstochooseside,becausetheyconfrontthemwithquestions
aboutguilt,justice,respect,andresponsibility.Obviously,bookscanconfirmthe
culturalvaluesandusagesofasociety,butalsocriticisethem.UTCcriticises
Americansocietyandslaverybymeansofagrippingstoryandhasastrong
educationalvalue.Powerfully,thebookcompelledcontemporaryreaderstochoose
sideintheslaveryquestion.However,tomoderndayadolescentreadersthe
universalquestionsBeecherStoweposesaboutguiltandresponsibilityarestill
relevantandinteresting.Apartfrombeingagoodreadandexcitingbook,UTCis
intellectuallyandmorallychallenging,andthereforeinterestingtoadolescentswho
aredevelopingtheirownpersonality,worldviewandvalues.
Lastly,literaturehasanaestheticfunction(21,22).AccordingtoCoillie,abook
isaestheticallysuccessfuliftherelationbetweenformandcontentisharmoniousand
theyformaunity.Insuchabook,thewordingisoriginalandeloquent.Asthemost
importantcharacteristicoftheaestheticfunction,vanCoilliementionsthatitcreates
abalancebetweentheotherfunctions.If,forexample,theinformativefunction
overrules,abookwillnotbeaestheticallysuccessful.ThewritingstyleinUTCis
originalandnaturalandthedifferingfunctionsofthebookareinagoodbalance.
PaulaT.Connollyalsoexploreswhysomanybooksdescribingslaverywere
writtenoradaptedforchildren.Sheexplainsthatdespitethegrimtopic,booksabout
slaveryareofteninherentlyhopeful(108)becausetheydescribehowslavesescape
outofslaveryandfinallybecomefree.Apartfromthat,thebooksoftenfocusonthe
reestablishmentofthefamily(109).Thisfocusonthefamilyisrelevanttoyoung
children,asitfitsinwiththeirownenvironment.Theycanunderstandthe
importanceofhavingafamilyaround.Besides,theprotagonistsregularlyareyoung
childrenthereaderseasilycanidentifywith.Scenesofviolencearecarefully
balancedbyhopefulpassagesanddescriptionsofslaverylookforwardtoabolition.
37
InthecaseofUTC,thebookdoescontainahopefulsubplotabouttheescapeof
GeorgeandElizaHarris,whoindeedmanagetomaketheirwaytofreedom.Besides,
eventhoughuncleTomdies,hisdeathmayhavebeenregardedasakindofescape
storyfromtheChristianperspectiveofBeecherStoweandmanycontemporary
readers,becausetheybelievedhewouldgotoheavenandthusbesetfreeeternally.
Despitethefactthattheprotagonistsarenotchildren,childrenandfamilylifedo
playanimportantroleinthestory.EvaandTopsyareportrayedinsomedetail,
UncleTomstronglydesirestobereunitedwithhiswifeandchildren,andthe
obedientElizarisksherlifetosaveherlittlesonfrombeingsoldaway.
RitaGhesquirealsopayssomeattentiontothequestionwhyclassicsand
canonicalbookshavesooftenbeenadaptedforchildren.Sheexplainsthatformer
canonicalbooksoftenareadaptedaftertheyloststatusandwerenolonger
consideredaninterestingreadbyadults(71).Initially,thiswasnotthecasewith
UTC,asitwasadaptedforchildrenimmediatelyafteritspublicationandhashada
greatpopularitywithbothadultsandchildrenforalongtime.However,eventhe
integraltranslationofJosWayboer,thatoriginallyaimedatadults,nowappearsasa
childrensbookbyvanGoor.
Inshort,thearticlesbyvanCollieandConnollyarebothhelpfulindeclaring
whyUTCwasadaptedforchildren.InUTCthefunctionsofchildrensbooksare
balancedverywell.Apartfromthat,thebookappealedtoyoungreadersbecauseit
wasinherentlyhopefulandtheycouldtoalesserorgreaterextentidentifywiththe
charactersinthebook.However,eventhoughUTCisappealingtochildren,thebook
hasmanycharacteristicsthatcouldmakeitunfitfor(young)children.BeecherStowe
didnotwriteUTCtoamuseorrelaxchildren,buttounsettleandstirpeopleupto
takeactionagainsttheharshrealityofslavery.PaulaT.Connollywordsthedilemma
ofatranslatororadaptorveryclearly:
...toerasetheviolenceofsucheventswouldbetomitigatetheatrocityitself,
yetincludingviolencecouldeasilyalienateorterrifyveryyoungchildren.For
example,inretellingU.S.slavery,howdoesoneportray(...)scenesof
whippings,murders,rapes,andtheforcibleseparationoffamilies?Inshort,
howdoesonetellthetruth?(107).
Connollyevidentlymakesclearthatwhenatranslatoradaptsastoryaboutslavery,
heisatrisktoadapthistoryandtoviolatethetruth.Inparagraph4.3willbe
describedwhatstrategiestranslatorsapplytochildrensbooksandwhatsolutions
theyhavefoundtosolvethedilemmastatedabove.
4.3TranslatingforChildren
InTranslationStudiessomestatetranslatingforchildrenisintrinsicallythe
sameastranslatingforadults,whileothersarguetherearegreatdifferencesthat
mainlyhavetodowiththecognitivedevelopmentofchildren.Accordingtothe
38
translatorWilmyPerridontranslatingforchildrendoesnotrequireanyadditionalor
differentqualitiesintranslators.Shestatesthatifthesourcetextwaswrittenfor
children,translatorsneednottakethecognitivedevelopmentofchildreninaccount
whiletranslating.Sheassumesthatinsuchacasethesourceauthorwillalreadyhave
adjustedhimselftothereadingabilities,interestsandknowledgeofchildren.
Perridonclaimsthatatranslationshouldreadasifitwasoriginallywritteninthe
targetlanguage,butshealsopleadsforaforeignisingtranslation(33,34).Perridon
holdsthesameopinionastheSwedishGteKlingberg,whostatesthatatranslator
shouldnotchangethedegreeofadaptationthesourceauthorused(vanCoillie,17,
2006).Atthesametime,mostscholarsdostatethattranslatingforchildrenprovides
thetranslatorwithadditionalchallenges.Shavitexplainstranslatorsofchildrens
booksareallowedtotakelibertieswiththetext,buthavetoadheretotwonorms.
Nevertheless,allthesetranslationalproceduresarepermittedonlyif
conditionedbythetranslatorsadherencetothefollowingtwoprincipleson
whichtranslationforchildrenisbased:anadjustmentofthetexttomakeit
appropriateandusefultothechild,inaccordancewithwhatsocietyregards
(atacertainpointintime)aseducationallygoodforthechild;andan
adjustmentofplot,characterization,andlanguagetoprevailingsocietys
perceptionsofthechildsabilitytoreadandcomprehend(112,113).
So,eventhoughtranslatorsofchildrensbooksareallowedtotakelibertieswiththe
text,thenormsaredemanding.Anadditionalchallengeisthedualtargetaudience
thatcharacteriseschildrensbooksingeneralandcrossoverliteraturespecifically.
Moreover,translatorshavetotakethecognitivedevelopmentofchildrenandtheir
restrictedliteraryandlinguisticknowledgeinaccount.Atthesametime,theyshould
trytofindequivalentsforwordplaysandtranslatetheironyandovertonesadults
appreciatesomuchinchildrensbooks.JanvanCoillieshowsthattranslatorsof
picturebookshavetotaketheillustrationsinaccounttoensurethatthetextand
illustrationsformaunity.Besides,translatingdialoguesinanaturalandrealistic
childishmannerrequiresgreatlanguageskillsofthetranslator(36,37).Shavit
speaksabouttheconstraintsimposedonatextthatentersthechildrenssystem
(112):the affiliation of the text toexisting models; the integrality of the text's primary and
secondarymodels, the degree of complexity and sophistication of the text; theadjustment of
the text to ideological and didactic purposes; and the style of the text (115).UTCprovides
aninterestingcasestudyofabookthatentersthechildrenssystem(112),because
thebookwasnotoriginallywrittenforchildrenandthereforenotadaptedtotheir
environment,linguisticknowledgeandworldknowledge.Translatorsadaptedthe
bookforchildrenaccordingtheirowninsightsandopinionsaboutchildrenand
childrensliterature.Asaresult,thedifferenttranslationsrevealinteresting
informationaboutthechildimageofthetranslatorandcontemporaryopinionsabout
childrensliterature.
39
Whatkindofadaptationsthetranslatormakes,dependsonhischildimage
andtheagegroupheistranslatingfor.Thechildimageofthetranslatorinfluences
thetranslationproductimmensely.RiittaOittinenstressestheimportanceofthis
childimageoftranslators:accordingtotheirideologies,translatorsdirecttheir
wordsatsomekindofchild,naveorunderstanding,innocentorexperienced(van
Coillie&Verschueren,412).Besides,thechildimageandopinionsaboutchildrens
literaturehavechangedovertime.RitaGhesquierepointsoutthatuntilthe20th
centuryfairytales,adventurestoriesandthehistoricalnoveldominatedchildrens
literature.However,inthe19thcenturyromanticisminfluencedandidealizedthe
imageofthechildandchildhood.Childrenshouldenjoytheiryouthandwere
isolatedfromthebleakoutsideworld.Itwasforthisreason,Ghesquiereexplains,
thatsex,violenceandinjusticebecametaboosubjects,consideredunfitforyoung
children,unlesssublimatedinfantasytalessetinahardlyrecognizableworld(23).
GhesquireposesthesamedilemmaasConnollydidearlier:howshouldonemakea
faithfultranslationofabookthatdescribesthehorrorsofslavery,withoutexposing
theyoungreadertotaboosubjectsorfrighteningscenes?
InhisarticleVertalenvoorkinderen:hoeanders?vanCoilliepaysattention
tosomestrategiestranslatorsappliedtochildrensbooks(2005).Asthefirstkindof
adaptationhementionsadaptationstoculture,astranslatorsnaturallyhaveto
choosebetweenadomesticatingorforeignisingtranslationstrategy(18).Secondly,a
commonadaptationisthatofthewordingandplotofastory(22).Translatorsoften
usethisstrategytomakethetexteasieraccessibletoajuvenileaudience.Finally,
translationsarefrequentlyadaptedtoeducationalvaluesinaculture(28).Van
Coillieexplainsthatpassagesthatdealwithsex,physicality,violence,andreligion
aremostfrequentlyadapted.Sometranslatorsprefertosolvethedilemmastatedby
Connollybysimplyomittingscaringpassagesandtaboos.
InherarticleConnollyalsoexploreshowwriterstrytomakebooksabout
slaverysuitableforchildren,withoutviolatingthetruth.Sheidentifieswhat
techniquesthewritersusetobalanceconcernsofaccuracyandaudience(108).She
mentionsfocus,form,andreaderpositioningasthreetechniquestomakethese
grimbooksaccessibletoayoungaudience.Somewritersletthereadersidentifywith
awhitecharacterandthuscreateadistancebetweenthereaderandtheactual
victimsofslavery.Whatconcernsform,illustratorsoftenavoiddrawingpictures
abouthorrifyingpassagesinabook.Thereforethedepictionofviolenceisinversely
proportionaltothepossibilityofescape(109).Finally,thewritersmostlyfocusona
happyendingandtheabolitionofslavery,ratherthanthedeadendsituationmost
slavesfoundthemselvesin.

4.4Illustrations:AVisualLanguage
Theworkofanillustratorcanbecomparedtothatofatranslator.Both
interpretthesourcetext:theonevisually,theotherverbally(Oittinen,100,2000).The
influenceofanillustratorisoftenunderestimated,justlikethatofthetranslator.
40
Oittinenstressesthatillustrationsareanintegralpartofabookanditstranslation,a
partofthedialecticwholethatinfluencesthecontentofthestory(103).Likea
translation,illustrationscaninfluenceourinterpretationsofstories(101)andmake
emotionalimpact(103).Naturally,theinfluenceofillustrationsisgreaterforpicture
booksthanillustratednovels.Illustrationscanstrengthenthemessageofthetextand
evenadduntoit.Oittinenstatesthatillustrationsareaninfluentialvisuallanguage
(114)andshouldthereforenotbeleftoutofconsiderationwhilestudyingatextand
itstranslation.
Likewise,vanCoilliestressesthatillustrationsareastoryontheirownand
functiontomakethestorymorepleasant,tovisualiseinformationandtodepictthe
moralofthestoryinalivelymanner(41,1999).Illustratorscanputindetailsintheir
illustrations,thatarenotapartofthetextandthusenlargethetextworld.Apart
fromthat,theycaneitherchoosetoillustraterealistically,tostylisetheirillustrations,
ortodrawinanexpressionistorcaricaturalmanner.VanCoillieremarksthat
illustrationsinmoralisticstoriesaround1850areusuallyrealistic(44).
ElmarKolfinstudiestheillustrationsinseveralversionsofUTCinDutch.He
describeshowthetextandillustrationsofdifferingeditionsofUTCwereadjustedto
thetargetaudience.Consequently,theydifferfromversiontoversionandpresent
variousimagesofslavery.HediscoversthataspectsofChristianitywereregularly
stressedintheillustrations(69).Apartfromthat,therelationbetweenblackand
whiteisoftendepicted.Illustrationsofthesufferingoftheslavesfunctionedto
spreadtheabolitionistcreed(70).Kolfinnoticesthatsomeillustratorshaveavoided
todepictviolenceorharshsidesofslavery.Remarkably,itwasnotuntilthirtyyears
aftertheabolitionofslaveryinSurinamethatthesufferingofslaveswasdepictedin
detailandonalargescaleinDutcheditionsofUTC.Kolfinsuggestsguiltcouldhave
detainedillustratorsfromdepictingviolenceandabuseinasentimentalmanner(76).
Suchillustrationswerealsoabsentintheearliestversionsforchildren,becausethey
wereconsideredunsuitableforajuvenileaudience.Inthechildrensversionsthe
illustrationsdepictedreligiousscenesorpassagesofconciliationbetweenblackand
white(81).Becauseillustrationsclearlydirecttheinterpretationofatext,inthe
textualanalysistherewillalsobepaidattentiontotheillustrationsintheadaptations
forchildren.
4.5WhoreadsWhat?
Whiletalkingaboutchildrensliterature,onehastotakeinaccountthat
childrenarenotahomogeneousgroupofyoungpeoplewiththesamelinguistic
knowledgeorliterarydevelopment.Onthecontrary,therearegreatdifferences
betweenthereadingabilitiesandliteraryinterestsofchildrenofdifferentages.
However,withintranslationstudieschildrensliteratureisoftendescribedanddealt
withasamonolithicentity(Koster,65).Mistakenly,becausetheabundanceof
adapationsofchildrensbooksintranslationscouldberelatedtoanddeclaredbythe
differingagecategoriesofchildren(Koster,65,67).Apartfromthat,theagegroup
41
translatorsaimatcanexplainthetranslationstrategiestheyhavechosenandprovide
insightsintheirtranslationnormsandchoices.Possibly,oneofthereasonsUTC
wasadaptedsooften,isthatdiverseadaptationsaimatdifferentagegroupsand
translatorsapplydifferenttranslationstrategiestobooksforcertainagegroups.For
thatreason,abasicoverviewoftheliteraryinterestsofchildrenofeachagegroup
canbehelpfulandclarifyingfortheindepthanalysisinthelastchapters.
VanCoillieexplainsthatchildrenfromsixtotenyearsoldarefondofbooks
thatappealtotheirfantasy,likefairytales.Apartfromthat,theyreadrealisticstories
thattakeplaceinthefamiliarenvironmentofschoolandthefamily.Becausetheir
moralsensedevelopsstronglyaroundthisage,theylikestoriesaboutrecognisable
moralproblemslikebullying.Theydeveloptheabilitytodiscuss,toreasonlogically
andtomakeconnections.Thatenablesthemtoreadbooksaboutseveralprotagonists
andwithmorethematicmotifs(54,55,1999).Generally,thestoriesforthisagegroup
takeplaceinarecognisableandrealisticsetting.
Fromtheageoftentotwelve,childrenstarttoreadmorecomplexstoriesand
arereadyforbookswithseveralstorylines.Theygrowtolikeadventurousbooksand
suspensefulstories,butatthesametimelovestoriesinarealisticsettingandabout
everydayproblems.Theirinterestintheexperiencesofotherchildrenincreasesand
theyhaveacquiredtheabilitytoempathisewithchildrenfromothercultures.
Obviously,theystaylessclosetohomeastheydidafewyearsago(56,57).
Whenchildrenreachpuberty,theychangeenormouslyinemotional,physical
andmoralrespects.Thatstartsaprocessoffinwhichtheybegintolookfortheir
personalidentity.Booksaboutfriendship,loveandsexualityhavetheirinterest.
Apartfromthat,theirabilitytoempathisewithothershasstronglydevelopedand
enablesthemtoidentifywithprotagoniststoagreaterextent.Ethicalquestionsand
abstractreasoningarenolongerproblematicandbecausetheyareabletoreason
abstractly,theyalsoappreciatehistoricalnovels(5759).
Inshort,vanCoillieshowshowtheliteraryinterestsandreadingabilitiesof
childrencoincidewiththeircognitivedevelopment.Throughtimetheygrowtolike
morecomplexstories,becomeinterestedinethicalandmoralquestionsanddevelop
theabilitytoreasonabstractly.Asaresult,theyhavelearnedtoimaginesituations
theyneverfoundthemselvesinortoempathisewithprotagonistsfromthepast.

4.6ChildrensLiteraturefrom18502008
Notonlythedevelopmentofchildrendetermineshowatextandits
translationaregoingtolooklike;thegeneralopinionsaboutchildrensliterature
playanimportantroletoo.From1853onwards,whenthefirstchildrenseditionof
UTCappeared,untilpresently,childrensliteraturehasundergonegreatchanges.As
adescriptionofthecontemporaryopinionsaboutchildrensliteraturecouldbe
helpfulinunderstandingthetranslationstrategiesofadaptorsofUTCandthe
varyingendresults,abriefoverviewofchildrensliteratureinTheNetherlandsfrom
1850untilnowwillbegivenbelow.
42
Inthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcenturychildrensliteraturefirstofallhadto
beeducativeandinformative.Thedescribedchildrenweretheverypicturesof
virtuousness(VanCoillie,267,1999)andforthemostpart,thetoneofthebookswas
moralising.Horridexamplesofchildrenwhoweregruesomelypunishedfortheir
badbehaviourabounded.Buijnstersshowshowthemoraleducationofchildrentook
inacentralpositionintheirupbringing(21).Historicalnovelswerecharacterisedby
nationalismandastrongfeelingofculturalsuperiority.Fromthesecondhalfofthe
nineteenthcenturyonwards,childrensbooksgraduallychanged.Thechildren
protagonistsbecamemoreplayfulandchildlike(268),thoughthebookswerestill
moralisingandmostlyhadanorthodoxprotestantmoral.
Aroundtheturnofthecenturyanewkindofchildimageandconsequently
childrensliteratureappeared.Whereasbeforethechildwasseenasaminiature
adult,nowtheinnocentchildanditscarefreeyouthbecameidealised.Theaimof
educationwasnolongertobringthechildupassoonaspossible,buttoletitenjoy
itsyouthaslongaspossibleandprotectitfromadultlife(Buijnsters,25).Educators
startedtopayattentiontothefeelingsofchildrenanddescendedtotheirlevel.The
moralisingtendencyofchildrensbookswascriticisedandmorallessonsinbooks
becamelessexplicit.Suspensefulstoriesandtranslatedadventurestoriesbecame
popularandwereoftentranslated.UTCwasjustoneofthemanyclassicsthatwas
translatedinDutchandadaptedforchildren.Inthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury
peoplediscussedwhatchildrensbooksshouldbelike(deVries,163).Someargued
infavourofentertainingadventurebooks,whileotherspreferredbookswithan
educationalfunction.Withtheappearanceofmischievous,goodhearted
protagonistslikethefunnyDikTrom,theentertainingfunctionofbooksbecamemore
important(vanCoillie,273).However,thediscussionsaboutthe(un)desirabilityof
childrenreadingDikTromshowedthatcriticsstillanalysedtheeducationalvalueof
childrensbooks(deVries,4346;6162).Accordingtothecontemporaryliterary
criticNellievanKol,childrensbookshadtocontributetothedevelopmentofthe
child.Shecalledachildrensbookgood,wanneerhetopaantrekkelijkewijze
bijdraagttotdevormingvanhart,verstand,goedensmaakenzedelijkgevoelvanhet
kind(deVries,47).Inthisperiodchildrensbookswerechieflyregardedasameans
intheupbringingofchildren(deVries,46,53,56).
From1930onwards,childrensliteraturebecamemorereaderoriented,
becausewritersadjustedtotheliteraryandemotionaldevelopmentofchildren.Het
meestopvallendisdetoegenomenaandachtvoordeliterairevoorkeurvankinderen
()Na1930spelendeliteraireenemotioneleontwikkelingvankinderenechtereen
belangrijkerolindebeschouwingenoverkinderliteratuur(deVries,163).During
thistime,societygraduallybecamesegregatedalongsocial,politicalandreligious
lines.Thissegregationwasalsovisibleinchildrensbooks:someprotestantwriters
clearlywroteforaprotestantaudienceandviceversa(deVries,193).Asaresult,a
widerangeofchildrensbooksappeared.Thediversityinthepublicationof
childrensbooksremainedcharacteristicforthisperiod.Humorousstorieswere
publishedalongsideadventurestories,diaries,adventurestories,andhorrorstories.
43
Notallcriticswerepositiveaboutthewiderangeofadventurestoriesandstrip
cartoonsthatappeared,buttheywerepopularwithchildren(deVries,177).Inthis
periodthefocusgraduallyshiftedfromtheeducationalmotivesofadultstothe
interestsofchildren.AnnieM.G.Schmidtwasaspokeswomanofthisnewapproach
ofchildrensliterature:
Jemoetuitgaanvanhetkind:inelkeperiodevanzijnlevenheefteenkind
behoefteaaneenbepaaldsoortboekenmeteenbepaaldeemotioneleinhoud.
Kinderenlezenuitsluitendmethunemotionelekant;daarmoetenwe
rekeningmeehoudenbijhetschrijvenenkiezenvankinderboeken(deVries,
187).
Thesocietalchangesofthesixtiesandseventiesalsoinfluencedchildrens
books.Socialcriticismandsocialengagementcharacterisedthesedecades.Formerly
fixedsetsofvalueswereopenlyquestionedandpeoplewereurgedtomaketheir
ownchoices.Booksdescribedcontemporarysocietyandworldpolitics;writersdid
notshyawayfromtopicslikewarandairpollution.Theformertendencytoprotect
childrenfromtheadultworldwasrepudiatedandchildrenwereopenlyconfronted
withpoverty,sex,discriminationandviolence.Aboveall,childrensliteraturein
thesedecadeswascharacterisedbythebreakingoftaboos.Deopvoeders()
vondendatkinderliteratuureenbijdragemoestleverenaandemaatschappelijke
bewustwording.Zijwildenkinderenconfronterenmetderealiteit,zondertaboes
(231).DeVriesshowsthatwriterswantedchildrentoformtheirownopinionabout
theworldaroundthem.Zijpleitenernietmeervoorkindereneencodemeete
gevenvangoedenkwaad,maarwillendevoorwaardenscheppenvooreen
zelfstandigekeuzeeneenkritischeinstelling(221).
Fromtheeightiesonwards,thepsychologicalelementofbooksbecamevery
important.Feelingsandemotionsweredescribedingreatdetail.Besides,thestrict
divisionbetweenchildrensliteratureandadultliteraturewasbreached,aschildrens
booksclearlystartedtoaimatadualaudience.Fantasystoriesregainedtheir
popularityandneweditionsofclassicsstartedtoappear.
Inshort,from1850onwards,childrensbooksdevelopedenormously.While
initiallytheeducationalandinformativefunctionsofbookswereconsideredasthe
mostimportantones,graduallymoreattentioncametobepaidtotheotherfunctions
andthe(literary)interestsoftheaudience.
Chapter5.TextualAnalysisEenKijkjeindeHutvanoomTombyA.G.
Bruinses
44
5.1ATertiumComparationis:SourceText
Inordertohaveaninstrumenttocomparethetargettextswiththesourcetext,
firstlyanoutlineofthesourcetextandtargettextsarerequired.Inthefollowing
chapters,thesamewillbedoneforthetargettexts.Theseoutlineswillfunctionasa
tertiumcomparationis,abasictoolthatmapsthemostimportantsemanticand
pragmaticcharacteristicsofthesourceandtargettextinordertocomparethemand
todescribethemaintranslationstrategiesofA.G.Bruinses,P.deZeeuw,andEd
Franck.Alongwithadetailedtextualanalysisofthetranslationstrategies,this
outlinewillprovidetherequiredinformationtoanswerthequestionhowBruinsess,
deZeeuwsandFranckstranslationsstrategiesreflectcontemporaryopinionsabout
thechild,childrensliteratureandDutchsociety.Besides,Illinvestigatewhetherthe
translationstrategieshaveconsequencesforthethematicinterpretationofthetext
world.
Whichtext?
Writer:HarrietBeecherStowe
Year:1852
Title:UncleTomsCabin,orNegroLifeintheSlaveStatesofAmerica
Publisher:WordsworthEditionsLimited,1995
Series:WordsworthClassics
Nr.ofpages:415p.
Editions:1
st
edition1853
Who?
Maincharacters:
- UncleTom
Protagonistofthestory,aslavesoldawayfromhiswifeandchildren.Meekand
pious,Tomclingstohisfaithintheworstcircumstancesandrefusestoharbour
angrythoughtsagainsthisevildoers.FinallyhediesasaChristianmartyr.Heis
atypeofChrist,becauseheiswillingtosacrificehislifeto(hostile)others.
- GeorgeHarris
Proudandintelligentmulatto,whoescapesfromhistyrannicalowner.George
doesnothesitatetouseviolenceagainstslavecatchers.
- ElizaHarris
WifeofGeorgeHarris,slaveoftheShelbyfamilyandabeautifulmulatto
woman.Thoughusuallytemperate,circumstancesshowheruncommonlybrave.
- EvaStClare
Anangelicgirl,morallyperfect,withstrongfaith.Shecountsslavesamongher
dearestfriendsandstronglyopposesthecrueltiescommittedagainstthem.
- AugustineStClare
Evasfather,anintellectualcharacter.Herepresentsslaveholders,who,though
theyareawareof,andcondemntheevilsofslavery,practiseandtoleratethe
45
system.
Othercharacters(inorderofappearance):
- Mr.Shelby
Tomsfirstowner.
- Mrs.Shelby
WifetoMr.Shelby.Oneofthemanywomenwhotrytoexerttheirmoral
influenceontheirhusbands.
- GeorgeShelby
Tomsyoungmaster,ferventlyopposedtoslaveryanddisposedtostrugglefor
abolition.
- Haley
Acruelslavetraderwholacksanythoughtofthehumanityofslaves.
- AuntChloe
LovingwifetoUncleTom,excellentcook,(blackswerethoughttohaveatalent
forcooking)angryabouttheinjusticedonetoslaves.
- SenatorandMrs.Bird
ThoughasupporteroftheFugitiveSlaveAct,senatorBirdcannotavoidhelping
thefugitiveEliza.Heshowsthelawisnothumane,andpeopleshouldactwith
compassion.Hiswifehasastrongmoralinfluenceonhim.
- Quakers
Fulfilaminorrole,butareanexampleofhowanidealharmonioushousehold
shouldlooklike.Theyhelpescapedslavesindangeroftheirownlives.
- TomLoker
Acruelslavehunter,whogivesuphisillpracticeswhenapeaceableelderly
Quakerwomancureshimafterhegotwoundedinaslavehunt.
- MarieSt.Clare
WifetoAugustineSt.Clare.Extremelyselfish,butneverthelessinthepowerto
determinethefateoftheslavesinherhousehold.
- OpheliaSt.Clare
NorthernnieceofAugustine,whoarrivestobringorderintothehousehold.
Thoughsheopposesslavery,shehasmanyprejudicesagainstblacks.She
symbolisesagreatpartoftheNorth,whoarenotreallyconcernedaboutthefate
ofblacks.
- Topsy
Describedasalittleheathen,sheisastereotypeoftheblackchild.Unintelligent,
evergrinning,unreliable.Topsyhasbeendescribedastheoriginofthe
stereotypeimageofthepicanninny.
- SimonLegree
Averycruelslaveowner,whokillsTom.Extremelysupernatural.Evil
incarnate.
- Cassy
MotherofElizaHarris,amulattowoman,intelligent,proudandfullofanger;
46
sheisforcedtobethemistressofherownersbutisnowdeterminedtoescape.
PsychologicallysheisthemasterofLegree,whoactuallyisfrightenedofher.
- Emmeline
Ayoungmulattowoman,withanexcellentupbringing.Sheischasteandpious.
BoughtbyLegreetoreplaceCassyashismistress,sheeventuallymakesher
escapewithCassy.
Where?
- America:
- Kentucky,Shelbyshousehold
- NewOrleans,St.Clareshousehold
- TheNorth
- OhioRiver
- Canada
- Louisiana,Legreesplantation
- Liberia
When?
Thestorytakesplacein19
th
centuryAmerica,afterthepassingoftheFugitiveSlave
Act,atthetimeofwritingthenovel.
Whathappens?(plot)
Therearetwoplots,themainplotinvolvingUncleTom,andasubplot,thattells
abouttheescapeoftheHarrisfamily.BothplotsstartatthehouseholdofMr.
Shelby,butevolveintotwodifferentstorylinesthatreuniteattheendofthenovel.
Mainplot
TheprotagonistUncleTomissoldawayfromhiswifeChloeandhischildrenbyhis
paternalisticmasterShelby,whohastoabsolvehisdebts.ThetraderHaleytakes
himdownsouthonaboatattheMississippi.AttheboatTomsavesEvaSt.Clare
fromdrowning,whosefather,thearistocraticAugustineSt.Clare,gratefullybuys
UncleTom.AttheSt.ClarehouseholdinNewOrleans,astrongaffectiongrows
betweenthepiousUncleTomandtheangelicEva.WhenSt.Claredies,hiswife
Mariesellstheslaves.TomisboughtbytheruthlessLegree,whotakesagreat
dislikeofhim,becauseofhispietyandgoodnessthatstarklycontrasttohisown
evilnature.WhenTomrefusestosaywherethequadroonsEmmelineandCassy
escapedto,andbesidesdoesstatethathissouldoesnotbelongtoLegreebutto
God,Legreekillshim.WhenUncleTomliesdyinghisformermasterGeorgeShelby
comestobuyhimback.
Subplot
WhenthebeautifulmulattowomanElizaHarrisoverhearshermasterMr.Shelby
andthetraderHaleymakeadealaboutthesaleofherchildHarry,shedetermines
tofollowherhusbandGeorgeandtorunawaytoCanada.Withtheangryslave
47
traderHaleycloseatherheels,ElizamakesadesperateescapeoverthefrozenOhio
riverthatseparatestheslavestateOhiofromthefreeNorth.Fromthehouseof
senatorBird,ElizaisbroughttoaQuakersettlement,wheresheisreunitedto
George.ThoughinthefreeNorth,theirflightisnotyetover,astheslavehunter
TomLokerisafterthem.InaviolentconfrontationbetweenLokerandhismenand
theQuakersandtheHarrisfamily,GeorgeshootsLoker.Finally,theyarrivein
Canadaandarereallyfree.
Thetwoplotsmergeinthefinalchapter,whenitturnsoutthatElizaandCassyare
motheranddaughter.AttheendallformerslavesmovetoLiberia,tobuildona
newlifeandperfectsociety.
Whatisthetheme?
Themainthemeisthehorrorandevilofslavery.Thedescriptionofslaveryismeant
towinAmericansfromthesidelinesovertoabolitionism.Besides,thebookmakes
clearhowChristianlovewillfinallyconquerviolence.Finally,withtheirmoral
influenceandpower,womenexertapositiveinfluenceonthestoryline.
WhereistheNarrator?
Thereisanomniscientnarrator.Thisisfunctional,becauseitenablesthewriterto
describeslaveryfromseveralperspectivesandmakethemessagemoreuniversal.
NarratorstextCharacterstext
Narratorstextandcharacterstextalternate.Usuallythenarratorintroducesanew
situation,episodeorchapter,afterwhichcharacterstakeover.Thecharacterstext
revealspersonalinformationaboutthecharacterspeaking,becauseeachcharacter
hasitsownspeakingstyle.Whiletheblackcharactersspeechrevealstheirlackof
educationandlowsocialclass,St.ClareandMr.Shelbyproduceintricatesentences
thatindicatetheireducationandhighsocialposition.
5.2ATertiumComparationis:APeepinUncleTomsCabin
InthecaseoftheDutchtranslationEenkijkjeindehutvanoomTom,theintegral
andoriginalversionofUTCisnotthesourcetext.In1853MaryLowhadmadean
intralingualadaptationofUTCforchildren,whichwastranslatedintoDutchbyA.
G.Bruinsesafewmonthslater.FormyBAthesisIhaveanalysedLowsadapatation.
Below,thesemanticpragmaticskeletonofLowsadaptationwillbegiven.
Afterwards,thetertiumcomparationisofA.G.Bruinsesstranslationwillbefilledin,
hertranslationstrategieswillbeanalysedandthebooksplacewithinthe
contemporaryculturalandliterarycontextwillbeexamined.Naturally,her
translationwillbecomparedtothesourcetextbyMaryLow,ratherthanBeecher
StowesUTC.Inthesemanticpragmaticskeletonbelowthedifferencesbetweenthe
sourcetext(UTC)andMaryLowstranslation(APeepintoUncleTomsCabin)are
48
visualised.Theplus(+)orminus()symbolsvisualisewhichaspectsofthe
translationareaddedoromittedincomparisontothesourcetext.

Whichtext?
Writer:HarrietBeecherStowe/MaryLow
Year: April1853
Title: APeepintoUncleTomsCabin
Decl.: tothechildren
Translator: AuntMary(pennameofMaryLow)
Illustrator: unknown,illustrationsareunsigned.
Publisher:London:SampsonLow&Son
Boston:JewettandCo
Series:
Nr.OfPages:419p.
Age:tothechildrenofEnglandandAmerica
Editions:1
st
edition1853
Whoisthetranslator?
In1878,GeorgeBullermadeabibliographyofUTC.HeidentifiedAuntMary
asMaryLow,daughterofaBritishpublisher.
Who?
Maincharacters:
- GeorgeHarris
- ElizaHarris
Othercharacters(inorderofappearance):
- SenatorandMrs.Bird
- Quakers
- TomLoker
- Cassy
Where?
- OhioRiver
- TheNorth
- Canada
- Liberia
Whathappens?(plot)
+Chapter1
Thefirstchapterisaddedbythetranslatorandtellsaboutthreesweetchildren,
towhomauntAnniestartstellingthestoryofUncleTom.Inthefollowingof
thebookthechildrenplaynorole,thebeginningfunctionsasanintroduction.
- Subplot
ThesubplotabouttheescapeofGeorgeandElizaHarristotheNorthisleftout.
49
Besides,thechaptersthattellthestoryofCassyandEmmelineareomitted.Asa
consequence,thefollowingchaptersareleftoutentirely:
II,III,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,XI,XII,XIII,XVII,XXXIV,XXXV,XXXVI,XXXVII,
XXXIX,XLII,XLIII,XLV
Severalchaptersarecontracted,andparagraphs,wordsorepisodesare
omitted.
Whatisthetheme?
AuntMarysstatementthatLovetoGodmustbethegreatrulingmotiveofevery
action(419).Inthecontextofthismainthemethehorrorsofslaveryaredescribed.
AtrueChristianhastobeanabolitionist.
Whereisthenarrator?
Thenarratorisomniscient,thoughitissuggestedacertainauntMarytellsthestory.
Narratorstextandcharacterstextdoalternate.
5.3ATertiumComparationis:EenkijkjeindehutvanoomTom
Above,thetertiumcomparationisofthesourcetextoftheDutchtranslation
EenkijkjeindehutvanoomTomisgiven.EenkijkjeindehutvanoomTomwas
consideredastheofficialadaptationforchildrenforhalfacentury,asitdidnothave
anysuccessfulrivaltranslationsforhalfacentury.BecauseEenkijkjeindehutvanoom
Tomisaninterlingualratherthananintralingualtranslation,culturaladaptations
couldplayaroleinthistranslation.Apartfromthat,itwillbeinterestingto
investigatewhetherBruinsesstranslationstrategiesfitinwiththecontemporary,
conservativeopinionsaboutchildrensliterature.Firstly,thetertiumcomparationis
ofA.G.Bruinsesstranslationwillbefilledin.Afterwards,hertranslationstrategies
willbeanalysedandthebooksplacewithinthecontemporaryculturalandliterary
contextwillbeexamined.Inthesemanticpragmaticskeletonbelowthedifferences
betweenthesourcetext(APeepintoUncleTomsCabin)andtargettext(Eenkijkjeinde
hutvanoomTom)arevisualised.Theplus(+)orminus()symbolsvisualisewhich
aspectsofthetranslationareaddedoromittedincomparisontothesourcetext.

Whichtext?
Writer:MaryLow/A.G.Bruinses
Year: May1853
Title: EenkijkjeindehutvanoomTom
Decl.: aandekinderen
Translator: A.G.Bruinses(pennameofJ.J.Beckering)
Illustrator: unknown,illustrationsareunsigned.
Publisher:Sneek:vanDruten&Bleeker(1
st
4
th
edition)
50
vanderStal(5
th
edition)
Rotterdam:Bolle(6
th
10
th
edition)
Series:
Nr.OfPages:346p.
Age:aandejeugd
Editions:1
st
ed.18536
th
ed.1910
2
nd
ed.18547
th
ed.1915
3
rd
ed.18808
th
ed.1921
4
th
ed.18889
th
ed.1926
5
th
ed.190410
th
ed.1932
Whoisthetranslator?
A.G.BruinsesprovidedthefirstadaptationofUTCforchildren.Bruinseswasher
penname,asshewascalledJ.J.Beckeringinreallife.Asatranslatorshefocussedon
childrensbooks.ApartfromUTC,shetranslatedsomestorybooksforchildrenout
ofGermanandEnglish,andoccasionallyabookoutofFrench.GulliversTravelswas
theonlyotherclassicsheadapted.Apartfromthat,sheassistedwiththe
compostionofsomechildrensbooks.Thebookssheworkedon,generallymakea
verymoralisticandreligiousimpression,likeMoedersschoot:godsdienstigeenzedelijke
verhalenenversjesvoorkinderen;MariaWerner,demoederlooze:eengidsoptlevenspad
voormeisjesenvrouwen,andSuzannaFrohberg,ofDegodsdienstschenktgelukenvrede.
However,shealsotranslatedsomehistoricalnovels,likeDevalenhetuiteindevan
denLandvoogdvanJudea,PontiusPilatusteViennelaDauphinoise:geschiedkundige
overlevering.
Sheworkedonatotalof17books,eitherasatranslatororwriter.Heradaptationof
UTCwasherbestsellingbookandhadthemostreprints.
Who?
A.G.Bruinsesdoesnotaddoromitanycharactersinhertranslation,thoughtheir
depictionmaydifferincomparisontothesourcetext,aswillbeshowninthe
analysisofthetranslationstrategies.
Where?
Thestorytakesplaceinthesameareasasintheoriginal.
Whathappens?(plot)
A.G.Bruinsesdoesnotchangetheplotoranythingontextlevel.Onthelevelof
sentencesandphraseshowever,sheregularlyomitsphrasesorwords.
Whatisthetheme?
AuntMarysstatementthatLovetoGodmustbethegreatrulingmotiveofevery
action(419).Inthecontextofthismainthemethehorrorsofslaveryaredescribed.
AtrueChristianhastobeanabolitionist.
Whereisthenarrator?
51
Thenarratorisomniscient,thoughitissuggestedacertainTanteMarietellsthe
story.
Narratorstextandcharacterstextdoalternate.
5.4TranslationStrategies
AccordingtoGillianLathey,translatorsofchildrensliteraturehavelongbeen
transparentandinvisible(1).Unjustlyso,becausetranslatorsareinpowerto
makeorbreakatext.Iftranslatorsareignored,theirenormousinfluenceonthestyle
andcontentsofthetext,isnottakenintoaccount.LatheyquotestheIsraelischolar
Shavitasshestatesthatcomparisonsbetweensourceandtargettextsreveala
filteringconsciousnessatworkmakinglinguisticchoices;adaptingthecontextofthe
original;aligningitwithmodelsinthetargetculture(2).Becausethetranslator
exertssuchinfluenceonthebook,adirectrecordofthetranslatorsvoiceis
desirable(2).Inordertofindananswertothequestionhowtranslationstrategiesfit
inacertaincultureandreflectcontemporaryopinions,aprefaceinwhichthe
translatorexplainshisintentionswiththetext,canbeofgreathelp.
MaryLowdidaddsuchaprefacetoheradaptation,inwhichshespeaks
rathercondescendinglyaboutheradaptingthesourcetextandevencallsit
mutilating[an]interestingandtouchingwork(preface).Thoughtheaimofthe
sourcetextwastowinpeopleovertoabolitionism,Lowdescribesherobjectasto
placeinthehandsofchildrenthebeautifullysimpleandtruthfulstoryofUncleTom,
andtosetbeforethemasanexampleofpatientcontinuanceinwelldoing,andof
neverwaveringfaithundercircumstancesofnoordinarytrialandtemptation
(preface).
A.G.BruinsessadaptationcontainsatranslationoftheprefaceofMaryLow,
butA.G.Bruinsesalsowroteherownpreface.Remarkably,unlikeMaryLow,
Bruinsesstressesthatthemainreasonthebookwaspublishedforchildrenwasto
makethemfamiliarwiththehorridfateofmillionsofslaves.Shehopesthe
publicationofthebookwillurgethejuvenilereadertodoalltheycanomaande
armezwartenbroederdenzegendervrijheidterugteschenken(iv).WhereasLow
didnotpayanyattentiontoslaveryinherpreface,Bruinsesmentionsthisasthe
mainthemeofthebookandevenhopeshertranslationwillactivatethereaders.
Jansedescribeschildrenwereinvolvedintheabolitionthroughmissionary
associations.Waarschijnlijkwarendekindergenootschappenbetrokkenbijeen
specialeactievanhetDamesComit:kinderenzameldengeldinvoordevrijkoop
vanslavenkinderen(113).
InherprefaceLowelaboratelyexplainedshewantedtosetthechildrenanexample
ofgoodChristianbehaviourbythedescriptionofUncleTomandEva.Bruinses
expressesthishopeinoneshortsentence,ratherthanthewholepreface.Besides,
MaryLowexpressedherstrongconvictionthesourcetextwasnotsuitablefor
52
childrenandsternlystatedthatthebookcannotbeplacedinthehandsofchildren.
BruinsessoftenedthisremarkinhertranslationofLowsprefacebyclaimingthatthe
bookinitsoriginalformwasjustmindergeschikttobeplacedinthehandsof
children(v).
BruinsessreasonsfortranslatingthenoveldifferedfromLowsreasonsfor
adaptingit.ThatraisesthequestionifBruinsessdifferentintentionsinfluencedher
translationstrategies.Below,hertranslationstrategieswillbeanalysedand
interpretedwithintheliteraryandhistoricalcontext.Thestrategieswillbedescribed
inthecategoriesvanCoilliemade,becausetheyaccuratelycoverthelinguistic
characteristicsoftexts.
5.5AdaptationofPlot&Phrasing
IntranslatingAPeepinUncleTomsCabinA.G.Bruinsesstayedclosetothe
sourcetext.Thoughshehasnotadaptedplotandchangedthetextonmacrolevel,
sheregularlyaddedoromittedphrases.Thisadaptationofphrasingdoeschangethe
textonamicrolevel.
Inthetranslation,Bruinsesregularlyomitsdifficultphrasesorclarifiesthem.
Inthismannerthetextbecomeseasiertounderstandforchildren.Thepassagebelow
givesanindicationofBruinsesexplicatingtranslatingstrategy.Thewordsorphrases
initalicsareaddedinthetranslationandobviouslyhaveaclarifyingfunction.
ST: mayyouandI(...)drawcomfortfromthesamesourceatalltimes(2).
TT: zijnvoorbeeldleereuenmij(...)tenalletijdetroostuitdezelfdebron,dieder
godsdienst,teputten(2).
ST: HesingssuchbeautifulthingsabouttheNewJerusalem,andbrightangels,
andthelandofCanaan(129).
TT: HijzingtzooheerlijkvanhetnieuweJeruzalem,vandeschooneengelen,en
vanhetlandKanan,waarmedehijzekerGodsschoonenHemelbedoelt(100).
Inthesourcetextthecharactersaretypifiedbytheirspeech,whichclearly
distinguishesthemfromeachother.Besides,itrevealstheirsocialstandingand
geographicalbackground.BruinsestranslatedthedialectsinahomogeneousDutch.
Asaresult,thecharactersarenolongertypifiedbytheirspeech.
ST: SoIdid,saidAuntChloe,Imaysaydat.Good,plain,commoncookin,
Jinnylldo;makeagoodponeobread,bilehertatersfar,hercorncakesisnt
extra,notextranow,Jinnyscorncakesisnt,butthentheysfar,but,Lor,
cometodehigherbranches,andwhatcanshedo?Why,shemakespiessartin
shedoes;butwhatkindercrust?Canshemakeyourrealfleckypaste,asmelts
inyourmouth,andliesalluplikeapuff?(18).
53
TT: Ja,datzeideik,verklaardeTanteChlo;ikhebgezegd,eenvoudig,gewoon
koken,datzalJennywelkunnen;zijkaneengoedbroodbakken,maarhare
korenkoekenzijnnietveelbijzonders,behalvedatzijvetzijn;maar,Heer,
beginmetietsAndres,watkanzijdandoen?Nuja,pastijen,diemaaktzij;
maarwatkorsten!Kanzijweleenemakendieuindenmondsmelt?(14).
EvenTopsysungrammaticalsentencesaretranslatedinagrammaticalDutch.
Therefore,thecomicalandcharacterisingeffectofTopsysspeechislostinthe
translation.
ST: Theysburntup,theywas.
Whatdidyouburnthemupfor?saidMissOphelia.
CauseIswickedIsmightywicked,anyhow.Icanthelpit(191).
TT: Ikhebzeverbrand,dathebik,zeidezijnogmaals.
Waaromhebtgijdiedanverbrand?vroegmissOphelia.
Omdatikzoondeugendwas!Ikwaszoovreeselijkondeugend.Ikkonhet
niethelpen(151).
BecauseBruinseshasnottranslatedthisdialectsandidiolects,charactersareless
lively,lessblack,andlessindividual.BusybodyauntChloeandunrulyTopsy
expressthemselvesinperfectlycorrectDutch,ratherthantheirungrammaticaland
characterisingidiolect.Obviously,Bruinsesschoicetoneutralisethedialectand
idiolect,hasasaresultthatBeecherStoweslifelikecharactersarelesswelldrawn
andbecomeflatter.
BeecherStowenotjustusedlanguagetotypifycharacters,butalsotoreacha
humorouseffect.Regularly,shemadeawordplayontherepetitionofacertainword
inanothercontext.Intheexamplebelow,therepetitionofmightyishumorous,
becauseGeorgemakesclearthatnomatterhowinterestinghisreadingandwriting
maybe,hepersonallypreferssomegoodfoodandcertainlythinksthatismore
importantatthemoment.Georgeseemstobequiteoccupiedbyfoodanyhow,asthe
secondexampleshows.HerethewordplayisonGeorgeswittyrepetitionofthe
wordprivileges.Unfortunately,Bruinsesseemsnottohavemanagedtothinkup
equaloriginalequivalentsinDutchandsimplyignoresbothwordplays.
ST: Thewayhecanwrite,now!Andreadtoo!(...)Itsmightyinterestin!But,
AuntChloe,Imgettingmightyhungry(15).
TT: Kijk,hijkanschrijvenenlezenook(...)datiswaarlijkknapvanhem.Maar,
tanteChlo,ikbeginhongertekrijgen(12).
ST: Ah,MasrGeorge,youdoesntknowhalfyourprivilegesinyerfamilyand
bringinup!Imsure,AuntChloe,Iunderstandmypieandpudding
privileges(19).
54
TT: MasserGeorge,engijweetniethalf,hoegoedgijhethebtinuwefamilieen
uweopvoeding!Ikweet,TanteChlo,welkelekkerpuddingenenpastijen
ikkrijg(14).
Bruinsesinabilitytotranslatethedialectsandwordplaysinanadequateand
livelymanner,couldpartlyduetoabadknowledgeoftheEnglishlanguage.The
translationcontainsmanymistakes,thatmostlikelyaretheresultofabad
comprehensionofthesourcelanguageandsourcetext.WhenauntChloeschildren
startkissingtheirbabysisterwhiletheirhandsandfacesarestickywithmolasses,
theirmotherreprovesthem:Getalongwidye!(...)Yellallsticktogether,andnever
getclar(23).ThissentenceprovedafalsefriendtoBruinses,asshewrongly
translateditwithGijzultnogstikkenennimmerklaarworden(18).Bruinsess
translationsofproverbsandfigurativespeechregularlyresultinhilariousmistakes,
becauseshetranslatesthemliterally.Ishouldntsleepawinkforaweek(18)is
translatedasineengeheeleweekgeenwenkinmijnogen(14).
Inshort,ananalysisofthephrasinginBruinsestranslationisnotthat
favourable.Bruinsesappearsasaratheruninventivetranslatorfromalinguistic
pointofview.Shehasnotmanagedtotranslatethewordplays,thatfunctiontomake
thesourcetexthumorousandspontaneous.Besides,whereasinthesourcetextthe
charactersaretypifiedbytheirspeech,inBruinsesstranslationallcharacterstalkin
aneatkindofDutch.Herwordchoiceissomewhatstiffandarchaic,anddoesaway
withthefluencyofthesourcetext.WhereasBeecherStoweshowedinUTCthatshe
masteredanaturalwritingstyle,Bruinsesstranslationismoreformalandless
original.Eventhoughthecontentsofthetranslationdonotdifferfromthesource
text,thewritingstyleinthetranslationismoreformalandlessinventive.

5.6InterpretationofThemesandTextWorld
AstheanalysisofBruinsesstranslationstrategieswithregardtoplotand
phrasingshowed,hertranslationdidnotresultintranslationshiftsonmacrolevel.
Eventhoughshedeclaredinherprefacethatshewantedtotranslatethebookto
makeknownthehorrorsofslavery,shedidnotlessenthethematicimportanceof
religion.BecausethetranslationshiftsareonmicrolevelandBruinsesdidnotadapt
theplot,thetranslationdoesnotdifferthematicallyfromthesourcetext.Therefore,
thethematicinterpretationofMaryLowsversioncanalsobeappliedtoBruinsess
translation.
Lowsabridgingtranslationstrategydidhaveconsequencesforthe
interpretationofthethemesofUTCandthewaythetextworldwasrepresented.The
thematicangleofthesourcetextisthreefold.Thenovelfirstandforemost
condemnedslaveryandtriedtowinreadersovertotheabolitionistside.Butapart
fromthat,religion,orrather:Christianityplaysanimportantroleinthenovel.
Thirdly,thepositionofwomenisatopicofinterestandthenovelshowswomencan
andshouldexerttheirmoralinfluenceonmen.InthetranslationofLow,and
55
consequentlyinBruinsesstranslationtoo,thesethreethemesareinterpreted
differently.
HarrietBeecherStowewantedtoshowthatblackswerenotinferiortothe
AngloSaxonrace.UncleTomshumanity,intelligenceandfaithareaproofofhis
maturepersonalityandthepotentialoftheentireracehebelongstoandrepresents.
However,MaryLowdescribestheappearanceofUncleTomasquitesuperiorto
othersofhisclass(6).Consequently,thequestionariseswhetherhecanstill
functionasarepresentativeofhisrace.Ifhisqualitiesarerare,hewouldbethe
exceptionthatprovedtheruleoftheinferiorityofhisrace.Besides,MaryLow
excisedthesubplotaboutGeorgeandElizaHarris,whichleavesUncleTomtheonly
blackroundcharacter.Thisinfluencestheimageofblacksthereadercreates,because
ElizaandGeorgecontrasttoUncleTomandcompletetheimageoftheblackrace.
Theirtemperament,prideandangerbalancethemeeknessandhumilityofUncle
Tom.Besides,GeorgeandElizarepresentanimportantgroupofslaveswhoresisted
slaveryandaccusedslaveholdersopenly.NowthatLowhasomittedthesubplot,the
ratherbalancedviewoftheblackracethatthesourcetextpresents,isthreatenedby
stereotypes.
Theadaptationoftheplotchangesthethematicimportanceofreligioninthe
text.LowkeptthetwelvechaptersaboutEveandtheSt.Clarehouseholdnearly
intact,oppositetopracticallyallotherchaptersinUTC.Asaconsequence,Eva
becomesacharacterequallyimportanttoUncleTom,withwhomshesharesa
devoutChristianity.BothUncleTomandEvaareassignedtypological
characteristics,becausetheymirrorChristintheirloveforthepeoplesurrounding
them,theirmoralsuperiority,theirfaith,patience,meeknessandintheirself
sacrificingattitude.Thus,thethemeshiftsfromslaverytoreligion.ThatMaryLow
wasawareofandintendedthisthematicshiftbecomesclearfromtheeditors
preface.InsteadofdescribingUTCasafierceandhorrifictaleofslavery,shecallsita
beautifullysimpleandtruthfulstoryofpatientcontinuanceinwelldoingandof
neverwaveringfaithundercircumstancesofnoordinarytrialandtemptation
(preface).Moreover,sheexpressesherwishthatthroughthebookeverychildwould
starttocontemplateEvasdeathandtrytolivealifeasvirtuously.ThoughBruinses
statesinherprefaceshefirstandforemostwantstomakechildrenfamiliarwiththe
fateofmillionsofslaves,shekeepsthethematicimportanceofreligionintact.
Intheadaptationforchildrengenderisnolongerathematicmotif.The
subplotaboutCassieandEmmeline,bothquadroonsanddestinedtobemistressof
Legree,isremoved.Stoweprotestedagainstthistrade,bywritingherlivelyportraits
aboutthefatesofCassyandEmmeline.InLowstranslationinterracialsexuality
seemsnottoexist.Neitherarecharacterstobefoundthatprovideanalternative
viewonwomen.ThebraveryandcourageofEliza,whodesperatelytriestorescue
herbelovedchild,orthefriendlinessandmoralpoweroftheQuakerwomenarenot
describedbyLow.Forthatreason,gendercanneitherbeconsideredathemeof
Bruinsesstranslation.
56
ThoughBruinseshasnotchangedthethematicangleofLowsadaptation,she
haschangedthecharacterisationoftheprotagonistEva.InthesourcetextEvais
describedasanangeliccharacter,whodoesnotreallyseemstobelongtothisworld
becauseofherbeautyandgoodness.Remarkably,thedepictionofEvainBruinsess
translationseemstobelesssentimentalandidealistic.Thatpartsofherdescription
thatsuggestsheisunearthlyandfairylikeareadaptedinthetranslationandbecome
morenatural.Herdreamyearnestnessofexpression(57)becomesthebijzondere,
denkendeuitdrukking(43).Hercloudliketreadandasshemovedasinahappy
dream(58)areomitted.Herfairyfootsteps(58)becomequiteordinaryligte
voeten(44).Themysteriousmisty,dreamydepthofexpression(64)inhereyes
changestoadieptevangevoel(48).However,itcouldverywellbeBruinesdidnot
objectagainstthesentimentalityinthedescriptionofEva,butsimplymadeitmore
ordinarybecauseshefelttheuncommondescriptionwouldbetoodifficultto
comprehendforchildren.
Inshort,A.G.BruinsesstranslationstrategieshavenotchangedLows
thematicinterpretationofthetext.However,thetextworldbecomeslesslively,
becauseshehasaformalstyleanddoesnotpreservetheidiolectthatenlivensthe
text.NeitherhasBruinsesmanagedtoproducealinguisticallyinventivetranslation.
ThatcouldhavehinderedBruinsessaimwiththebook,namelytomakethechildren
familiarwiththehorridfateofslaves.Becausethetextworldisratherformalandthe
characterslesslivelyandlifelikeasinthesourcetext,itwillhavebeenlesseasyfor
thereaderstoidentifywiththecharactersandtoempathisewiththem.Asaresult,
theinjusticethatisdonetothem,islesstangibleinthetranslation.Whereasthe
strongemotionalimpactofUTCforcesthereadertochoosesideintheslavery
question,Lowshiftedthethematicattentiontoreligion.Bruinsesonherturn,didstill
lessmanagetobringtheinjusticeofslaveryhome,becauseherformaldescriptions
failtomakeapowerfulemotionalimpact.
5.7Society
ThepublicationofUTCinDutchdrewtheattentionofthepublictoslavery
andinfluencethepublicopinioninfavourofabolitionism.Someclearlysawthe
socialcriticisminthenovelnotjustappliedtotheAmericansituation,buttoslavery
ingeneral.Theyrelatedthedescriptionsandcriticismofslaverytoslaveryinthe
Dutchcoloniesandpubliclyprotestedagainstit.InherprefaceBruinsesnotedthat
herobjectwiththetranslationwastomakeknownthehorrorsofslaveryandtourge
heryoungreaderstodoalltheycouldtofreetheslaves.Zoudendejongenvan
dagennietevenbereidvaardig,indienzijdaartoewordenaangespoord,hethunne
willendoenomaandenarmenzwartenbroederdevrijheidterugteschenken(iv).
Interestingly,BruinsesavoidsareferencetoslaveryintheDutchcoloniesand
ignoresthebooksrelevanceforDutchpolitics.Thus,shesuggeststoheryoung
readingpublicthatslaveryonlytakesplaceinAmerica.Thisimpressionis
strengthenedbecauseshedoeslinkMarieSt.Claresselfishattitudetoherslavesto
57
theegocentricwayinwhichDutchpeoplecantreattheirservants.Hoeveleheeren
envrouwenzijner,ookinonschristelijkNederland,diemetbetrekkingtothunne
dienstbarenenonderhoorigenaandezezelfzuchtigevrouwgelijkzijn(iv).Besides,
shepressesmotherstobringtheirchildrenuptoresembleEva.MogttochdeHut
vanOomTom,ooktenonzendeuitwerkinghebben,datiedervader,iederemoeder
bijhunkroosthetkaraktervanEvangeline,datvandenHeerJezusaantekweken
(iv).Obviously,BruinseswantsherreaderstotakethelessonsinUTCtoheart.
Therefore,itisstrikingshespeaksingeneralpositivetermsaboutabolitionismand
missionarywork,butignoresareferencetoslaveryintheDutchcolonies.
5.8ChildImage&ChildrensLiterature
Inparagraph5.4wasdescribedhowMaryLowstranslationstrategies
revealedherchildimage.Clearly,shetookonamoralisticattitudeandtriedtoadapt
thetexttothecomprehensionabilitiesofchildren.ThoughBruinsesstranslation
staysclosetoMaryLowsadaptation,hertranslationneverthelessrevealsadifferent
childimage.Lowreducedthetextoftheoriginal,butlargelyleftStowescomplex
writingstyleintact.Bruinsesadapted,toagreaterextentthanLow,thetexttothe
comprehensionabilitiesofchildren.Sheregularlyadaptedthephrasingofthenovel
andmadeiteasiertounderstand.Thus,sherightlytookintoaccounttherestricted
linguisticknowledgeofchildren.
ST: Yousee,shecontinued,inafaintandladylikevoice,likethelastdyingbreath
ofanArabianjessamine,orsomethingquiteethereal,yousee...(111).
TT: Gijziet,vervolgdezij,meteenezwakke,voornamestem,gijziet...(84).
ST: NoPuseyite,orconservativeofanyschool,wasevermoreinflexiblyattached
totimehonouredinconveniencesthanDinah(140).
TT: Dinahwasmetonwrikbarekrachtaanhetoudegehecht,enkonzichmaar
nietverbeelden,dathetnieuwegoedzoukunnenzijn(109).
MaryLowusesseveraltranslationstrategiestomakethesourcetextsuitable
forchildren.HermainstrategyinadaptingUTCforchildrenissimplifyingtheplot,
byomittingthesubplotaboutGeorgeandElizaandextrastorylines.Besides,Low
hasadaptedthesourcetexttosomeeducationalvalues.Thoughsomecharactersin
thesourcetextdonotshunfoullanguageandneithershyawayfromcursing,Low
carefullyavoidedtermsofabuseandswearwords.Referencestophysicalityand
interracialsexualityarelikewiseremoved.Theseinterventionsareadoptedby
Bruinses.
BecausethebookwastranslatedfromEnglish,Bruinseshadtochoosea
translationstrategyconcerningculturespecificelements.However,astheexamples
belowshow,shedidnotconsistentlychooseeitheraforeignisingordomesticating
58
strategy.WhereasBruinsesdomesticatessomenames,sheleavesothersintact.
Besides,theformofaddressmassersoundsquiteforeignandincomprehensible.
ST: Hersilentagony(...)tellsusthattheloveofanAfricanisasstrongasthatof
anEnglishmother(5).
TT: Haarstilleangst(...)zegtonsdatdeliefdeeenerAfrikaanschemoedereven
sterkisalsdievaniederandere(4).
ST: MoseandPete!Getoutdeway!(...)Getaway,Mericky,honey.(...)Now,
MasrGeorge,youjesttakeoffdembooks(16).
TT: Pakuweg,MozesenPieter!(...)Stil,Polly,mijnpopje.(...)Komaan,masser
George,bergnuuweboekenweg(13).
ThecontinuingsuccessofBruinsesstranslationcanpartlybedeclaredbyits
resemblancetocontemporarypopulargenres.Inthefirsthalfofthenineteenth
centurybookswithamoralisticmessagewerefashionable(Buijnsters,22).Thestories
inthesebookswereaboutperfectandwiseprotagonistsandweremeanttoset
youngreadersanexample.VanCoilliedescribestheDutchrepresentative
protagonistofthisgenre,thesocalledbraveHendrik(267).Itisremarkablethat
vanCoilliesdescriptionofthisHendrikcanbeeasilyappliedtoEva.LikeHendrik,
Evaisobedient,helpful,devout,industriousandcontent,lackingevenasinglebad
characteristic(267).Besides,vanCoilliecharacterisesthisgenrebyitssentimental
toneandidealisationofangelicchildren.Clearly,BruinsesstranslationofUTCfitted
inthisgenre,becausesomuchattentionisbeingpaidtothelifeanddeathofEvaand
themoralinfluencesheexertsonthepeoplearoundher.
However,fromthesecondhalfofthe19
th
centuryon,thepopularityofthe
moralisticstorieswiththeirstrongeducationalvaluesabated.Protagonistsbecame
lessperfectandmorechildlikeandevenmischievous.Nevertheless,Eenkijkjeinde
hutvanoomTomwasstillreprinted,becausethebookwasmorethanamoralistic
story.AngelicEvawascontrastedbymischievousTopsy,whobroughtplayfulness
andhumourinthestoryandprobablywastothetasteofamoremodernreading
public.Apartfromthat,suspensefulbooksbecamefashionableandmanyforeign
adventurestoriesweretranslated.UTCbelongedtothatgenretoo.Clearly,Eenkijkje
indehutvanoomTomfittedinwithvariouspopularcontemporarygenres.
5.6TheIllustrations
Illustrationscandirecttheinterpretationofatextandinfluencethereader
emotionally.The1853versionofEenkijkjeindehutvanoomTomcontainsfive
illustrationsbyanunknownillustrator.ThedigitalcatalogueoftheKoninklijke
BibliotheekmentionthatP.M.W.Trappublishedtheillustrations.Theillustrations
arelithographysinblackandwhiteandarebasedontheillustrationsinthesource
text(Kolfin,81).Onthetitlepagealltheillustrationsfromthesourcetextare
59
depictedverysmall(seebelow).Amongtheseillustrationsonthetitlepagearesome
thatwerenotincorporatedinthetargettext,liketheillustrationofUncleToms
deathbed.
Thematically,Bruinsessadaptationstressedthethemeofreligionratherthan
slavery.KolfinsstatementthattheillustrationsinchildrensversionsofUTC
regularlydepictChristianscenesorpassagesaboutconciliationbetweenblackand
white,cancertainlybeappliedtoBruinsessadaptation.Thenovelcontainsno
illustrationsofviolenceorharshdepictionsofslavery.Thefirstillustrationdepicts
UncleTomreadinghisBibleontheshipdownSouth(seebelow).Inthreeofthe
fiveillustrationsEvaisdepicted.Thesepicturesclearlyillustratehowblackand
whiteliveinharmony.TheillustrationsdepictUncleTomashesavesthedrowning
Eva,EvagivingawreathofrosestoUncleTom,andEvatellingTopsyshelovesher
(seebelow).ThelastpictureillustrateshowUncleTompraysatthedeathbedofSt.
Clare.JustlikevanCoillienotedaboutillustrationsinmoralisticstoriesfromaround
1850,theillustrationsinEenkijkjeindehutvanoomTomaredrawninarealistic
manner(44).
Obviously,theillustrationsfitinwiththethematicangleofthebookandits
focusonChristianityratherthanthehorrorsofslavery.Theillustrationsarehopeful,
becausetheyshowhowblackandwhitecometogetherinharmony.Thesufferingof
slavesisnotdepicted.Thus,theillustrationstrategiesresemblethetranslation
strategies,becausetheyfocusonreligionratherthanslavery,andonharmonyrather
thanconflict.

TitlePageUncleTomreadshisBible
60

EvaandTopsyEvaandTom

EvaissavedbyTomTompraysatSt.Claresdeathbed
61
Chapter6.TextualAnalysisDehutvanoomTombyP.deZeeuw
6.1ATertiumComparationis
Inchapterfive,thetertiumcomparationisofthesourcetextwasgiven.Inthe
semanticpragmaticskeletonbelowthedifferencesbetweenUncleTomsCabinby
HarrietBeecherStoweandthetargettextDehutvanoomTombyP.DeZeeuware
visualised.

Whichtext?
Writer:HarrietBeecherStowe/P.DeZeeuw
Year: 1939
Title: DehutvanoomTom
Decl.:
Translator: P.DeZeeuw
Illustrator: Roothciv
Publisher:DenHaag:vanGoorenzonen
Series:OudGoud
Nr.OfPages:135p.
Age:c.10
Editions:1
st
ed.19399
th
ed.1953
2
nd
5
th
ed.1939194910
th
ed.1954
6
th
ed.194911
th
ed.1955
7
th
ed.195012
th
ed.1957
8
th
ed.195113
th
ed.1960
14
th
ed.1962
15
th
ed.1965
16
th
ed.1967
Whoisthetranslator?
PietDeZeeuwwasanexperiencedwriterandadaptorofchildrensbooks.Hewas
bornin1890inawelltodofamilyandbecameaschoolteacher.DeZeeuwwasa
protestantChristianandinitiallywrotestoriesaboutkeymomentsorkeypersonsin
churchhistory,butlateralsogainedfamiliarityoutsideChristiancircleswithhis
seriesOudGoud.Forthisseries,headaptedfamousliteraryclassicsforchildren.
DeZeeuwtookgreatcarehisbookswerenotinconsistentwiththehistoricalfacts
andpaidattentiontominordetails(Kranendonk).Thisdetailedapproachdidnot
preventhimfromwritingapproximatelyfourbooksayear.
DeZeeuwabhorredpreachybookswithobtrusivemessages,butwasnevertheless
convincedthatchildrendeservedmeaningfulbooks.Hewasconvincedawriterof
childrensbookshadagreatresponsibilityineducatingchildren.Hisintentionwas
62
toletchildrenlearnthingswhilereading,withouttheirbeingawareofitbecauseof
thegoodandsuspensefulwritingstyleofthewriter.Clearly,DeZeeuwfelt
responsiblefortheeffectshisbookscouldhaveandevenstatedhewrotefor
peoplewithaneternaldestination(Kranendonk).
ReviewerscriticisedDeZeeuwsadaptionsofclassics,becausetheywereconvinced
heomittedessentialpartsoftheoriginal.Besides,theystatedhischaracterswerenot
describedwithpsychologicalinsight.
Hediedin1968,leavingbehindanoeuvreof200books.
Who?
P.DeZeeuwfollowsthethreadoftheoriginalstory.Allthecharactersthatare
mentionedintheoutlineofthesourcetext,alsoplayaroleinDeZeeuws
adaptation.However,minorcharacterswhoonlyappearinonechapteraremostly
omitted.Asaresult,Mr.andMrs.Birdschildren(82)arenotmentionedinthe
targettext,andneitherareallmembersoftheQuakerhouseholdmentionedor
describedinsuchdetailasinthesourcetext(XIII).WhereasBeecherStowe
describestheSt.Clarehouseholdindetail,DeZeeuwomitsminorcharacterslike
JaneandRosa(199,200).
Where?
Thestorytakesplaceinthesameplacesandareasasintheoriginal,apartfrom
Liberia.ThesourcetextdescribeshowGeorgeandElizafinallyemigratetoLiberia
andstartanewlifethere.ThisfittedinwithBeecherStowesopinionsabout
colonisation.ShefeltfreedslavesshouldreturntoAfricaandfoundastateoftheir
owninLiberia.P.DeZeeuwleavesthisreferencetoLiberaout,andletsGeorgeand
ElizabeginanewlifeinCanada.
Whathappens?(plot)
P.DeZeeuwhaskepttheplotandsubplotintact.Nevertheless,thestoryis
dramaticallyshortened,mainlybecauseDeZeeuwomitteddescriptivepassageand
extensivedialogues.The415pagesoftheST,typedinasmallfont,arereducedto
133pagesinaquitelargefont.Theadaptationapproximatelyisafifthofthelength
oftheoriginal.
P.DeZeeuwdidnotkeeptheoriginalorderofthechaptersintactandreducedthe
originalnumberof44chaptersto26.Hemergedchaptersfromthesourcetextin
thetranslation,butneverleftanentirechapterout.ThelistbelowshowshowP.De
Zeeuwchangedthedivisionofthechapters.Atthesametimethelistshowswhich
partsofthestoryDeZeeuwpaidmostattentionto.ThenumbersinRomanscript
arethechaptersinthesourcetext.
- 1I,II,III
- 2IV,V
- 3VI
- 4VII,VIII
- 5IX
63
- 6X
- 7XI
- 8XII
- 9XIII,XVII
- 10XIV
- 11XV,XVI
- 12XVIII,XIX
- 13XX
- 14XXI
- 15XXII,XXIII,XXIV,XXV,XXVI
- 16XXVII,XXVIII
- 17XXIX,XXX
- 18XXXI,XXXII
- 19XXXII,XXIII
- 20XXXIV
- 21XXXV,XXXVI
- 22XXXVII
- 23XXXVIII
- 24XXXIX
- 25XL,XLI
- 26XLII,XLIII,XLIV,XLV
Whatisthetheme?
Theslaveryoftheblackswasagrossinjustice,becauseblackandwhiteareequal.
Whereisthenarrator?
Thenarratorisomniscient.
Whereasinthesourcetextthenarratorstextandcharacterstextalternate,P.De
Zeeuwomittedalmostallofthenarratorstext.90%ofthetargettextcontainsof
dialogues.
6.2TranslationStrategies
P.DeZeeuwsadaptationofUTCisprecededbyashortpreface,inwhich
somefactualinformationisgiven.ItisunclearwhetherthisprefaceiswrittenbyDe
Zeeuwhimselforbytheeditor.ThereaderisinformedHarrietBeecherStowewrote
thetruestoryin1851asaprotestagainsttheslaveryinAmerica.Besides,inthe
prefaceisexplainedwhythebookwasadaptedtobepartoftheseriesOudGoud.
Thereasonsthatarementionedforadaptingthenovelforchildren,canbelinkedto
thefunctionsofchildrensbooksasdescribedinparagraph4.2.Firstly,thepreface
mentionsthebookwasadaptedbecauseitwasveryinfluentialandplayedan
importantroleintheabolitionofslaveryinAmerica.Clearly,theprefacesuggests
64
UTCisinformativeandenlargesthehistoricalknowledgeofchildren.This
schoolmasterlyapproachfitsinwithDeZeeuwsdidacticobjectinwritingstories.
Obviously,thefirstreasonforadaptingthebookcanbelinkedtotheinformative
function.Moreover,theprefacementionsthebooksremainingpopularityas
anotherreasonforitsadaptation.Apparently,thewriterbelievedthebookhadan
entertainingfunctionandheintendedtowriteanadaptationthatentertainedthe
youngerreaderstoo.Thirdly,thewriteroftheprefaceisconvincedthatthe
sympatheticcharacterofUncleTomstillappealstomodernreadersandthus
implicitlyreferstotheemotionalfunctionofthebook.Theprefacesuggeststhat
becauseUncleTomisakindcharacter,readersarelikelytoempathisewithhim.
HarrietBeecherStowewrotehernovelasaprotestagainstslavery,butP.De
Zeeuwadapteditinretrospect,decadesaftertheactualabolitionofslaveryin
AmericaandtheDutchcolonies.Therefore,thesocialcriticismofthenovelandits
activatingmessagewerenolongerofimmediatecurrentinterestatthetimeP.De
Zeeuwpublishedhisadaptation.Thefunctionofthenovelhadchangedfroman
activatingmessagetoasocialhistoricalaccount.Itwillbeinterestingtoinvestigate
whetherDeZeeuwstranslationstrategiesinfluencedthethematicinterpretationand
thetextworld.ItcouldbetheprotestantDeZeeuwshiftedthethematicattention
fromracetoreligion,becauseslaverywasnolongerathemeofinterest.Furthermore,
thequestionariseshowDeZeeuwsolvedthedilemmawordedbyConnollyhow
doesonetellthetruth?(107).Inordertoanswerthesequestions,thetranslation
strategiesandtheirconsequenceswillbedescribedbelow.
ForhisadaptationDeZeeuwreducedthesourcetexttoafifthorsixthofits
originalsize.Still,DeZeeuwhaskeptboththemainplotaboutUncleTomandthe
subplotaboutGeorgeandElizaintact.Neitherhasheomittedentirechaptersfrom
thesourcetext.ThemainstrategyDeZeeuwusedtoadaptUTCforchildren,wasto
abridgethesourcetexttoapproximatelyafifthofitsoriginalsize.Chaptersthathave
noimmediaterelevanceforthestorylinearedrasticallysummarised,astheexample
belowshows.
ST: chapterXXIII,Henrique,p.245251
TT: IndezetijdkwamAlfred,debroervanmeneerSt.Clarelogeren.Hijbracht
Henri,zntwaalfjarigjongen,mee.HenrienEvawarendegeheledagsamen;
zegingenpaardrijden,wandelenenspelletjesdoen.Maarvaakliephetop
twistgesprekkenuit,wantHenribehandeldezijnmeegebrachtknechtjeDodo
zwreed,datEvahemdaarherhaaldelijkovermoestonderhouden(86).
Besides,DeZeeuwomitteddescriptivepassagesorsummarisedtheminafew
sentences.TheexamplebelowaptlyshowshowDeZeeuwshortenedthe
descriptionsofcharacters.
65
ST: Herethedooropened,andasmallquadroonboy,betweenfourandfive
yearsofage,enteredtheroom.Therewassomethinginhisappearance
remarkablybeautifulandengaging.Hisblackhair,fineasflosssilk,hungin
glossycurlsabouthisround,dimpledface,whileapairoflargedarkeyes,full
offireandsoftness,lookedoutfrombeneaththerich,longlashes,ashepeered
curiouslyintotheapartment.Agayrobeofscarletandyellowplaid,carefully
madeandneatlyfitted,setofftoadvantagethedarkandrichstyleofhis
beauty;andacertaincomicairofassurance,blendedwithbashfulness,
showedthathehadnotbeenunusedtobeingpettedandnoticedbyhis
master(4,5)
TT: Meteenbonsvloogdedeuropeneneenaardigkereltje,lichtbruingekleurd
ennauwelijksvijfjaaroud,sprongdekamerbinnen(6).
Inthismanner,thedifficultylevelofthetextbecomeseasier,becausethedescriptive
passagesarecomplexinbothcontentandstyle.Atthesametime,thetextbecomes
livelier,forDeZeeuwchieflycutinthenarratorstext,ratherthancharacterstext.
Consequently,90%ofthetargettextconsistsofdialogues,asthenarratorstextis
shortened,summarisedoromitted.AttimesDeZeeuwadaptedthenarratorstextto
livelycharacterstext.

ST: Thatsasweetlittlefellow,addedthewoman,offeringhimacake(50).
TT: Welvent,lustjijeenkoekjevandevrouw?(28).
BecauseDeZeeuwdidnotfollowthestorylineofthesourcetextindetail,he
didnotcomeacrosseverywordplayofBeecherStowe.Nevertheless,iftherewasa
wordplaytotranslate,heshowstohavebeenawareofit.Inthefollowingexample,
thewordplayisontherepetitionofmighty.DeZeeuwplayedwiththerepetitionof
thewordknapandthuskeptthewordplayintact.
ST: Thewayhecanwrite,now!Andreadtoo!(...)Itsmightyinterestin!But,
AuntChloe,Imgettingmightyhungry(15).
TT: Och,och,watisdiejongeheertochknap,zegtnutanteChloe.(...)Jatante
Chloe,wiljewelgelovendatikvandatknappewerkgeduchtehongerkrijg?
(12)
Inthesourcetextblackandwhitecharactersspeakanidiolectordialect,that
revealtheirgeographicalbackgroundorsocialstanding.Unfortunately,DeZeeuw
omittedthischaracteristicofthesourcetextinthetranslation.Itmakesthetargettext
lesslivelyandratherflatintone,comparedtothesourcetext.
ST: Sposewemustberesigned;but,OLord!howkenI?IfIknowdanything
wharyousgoin,orhowtheydsarveyou!Mississaysshelltryanddeemye,
66
inayearortwo;butLor!Nobodynevercomesupthatgoesdownthar!They
killsem!Ivehearnemtellhowdeyworksemupondemarplantations
(88).
TT: WemoetenberusteninGodswil,Tom,(...)maarhetismijhaastniet
mogelijk.Mevrouwheeftgezegddatzejeterugzalkopen,zodrazehetgeld
ervoorbijelkaarheeft,maarochheden,wanneerzaldatzijn?Misschienbenje
danallangdood,wantdaarinhetZuidenwordendeslavenafgebeuld.Ze
zullenjedaarvermoorden(37).
However,despiteDeZeeuwschoicenottotranslatethedialects,hemastersa
naturalwritingstyle,ashistranslationsofexclamationsandphrasesshow.De
Zeeuwnevertranslatedliterally,butmanagedtopreservethecontentandmeaning
ofphrases.Intheexamplebelowthecondescendingtoneoftheoriginalispreserved.
Clearly,despitethefreetranslation,theeffectofthesentenceisthesame.
ST: Youteachyourgranny(41).
TT: Laatnaarjekijken,jochie(21).
Inthenextexample,JohnTrompeconfirmsheisthemanthatwillaidthefugitives
ElizaandHarry.EventhoughDeZeeuwdoesnottranslatethissentenceliterally,he
againpreservesthetoneandeffectofthesentenceinanaturalmanner.
ST: IratherthinkIam(86).
TT: ...wiltudieverbergen?Wisendrie,wilikdat!(36).
Onthewhole,DeZeeuwswritingstylemakesanaturalimpression.Hetranslated
exclamationsandphrasesinanidiomaticallyfluentDutch.DeZeeuwdidnotcutin
thesourcetextandtranslateorpreservetherestofitliterallyasMaryLowdid,but
rewrotetheentirestory.Hehasnotchangedtheplotandsubplotofthestory,but
hasleftoutcharactersofminorimportanceandtheoreticalpartsofthestory,like
discussionsaboutslavery.DeZeeuwhasnotaddedstorylines,charactersor
passagestothesourcetext.However,eventhoughDeZeeuwstayedrelativelyclose
tothesourcetext,histranslationstrategiesnaturallyinfluencetheinterpretationof
thethemesandthetextworld,astheanalysisbelowwillshow.

7.3.1InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Race
InthesourcetextHarrietBeecherStoweprotestedagainstslaveryinvarious
manners.Shefirstlymadeherreadersempathisewiththeblackprotagonistby
writingheremotionallychargednovelaboutslaveryanditseffectsonpeopleslives.
However,shedidnotjustinvolveherreadersemotionally,butalsointellectually.
ThemeekandpiousuncleTomiscontrastedwiththefierceandunbelievingGeorge
Harris.Georgerefusestosubmithimselftoslavery,becauseheisawareofthe
67
injusticeofthesystem.InchapterXI,propertygetsintoanimproperstateofmind,
Georgefiercelyprotestsagainstslavery.Heconvincinglyarguesslaveryisboth
againsthumanandreligiouslaws.
Iwonder,MrWilson,iftheIndiansshouldcomeandtakeyouaprisoner
awayfromyourwifeandchildren,andwanttokeepyouallyourlifehoeing
cornforthem,ifyoudthinkityourdutytoabideintheconditioninwhich
youwerecalled!Iratherthinkthatyoudthinkthefirststrayhorseyoucould
findanindicationofProvidenceshouldntyou?(103).
Ironically,theothercharacterinthenovelthatprovidesintellectualarguments
againstslaveryistheslaveholderSt.Clare.Talkoftheabusesofslavery!Humbug!
Thethingitselfistheessenceofallabuse!(207).However,asaresultofDeZeeuws
translationstrategies,theirprotestslargelygrowsilentinthetargettext.DeZeeuw
consistentlyomitteddescriptivepassagesandpassagesthatdonotdescribeactions.
Longconversationsarelikewisesternlyomitted.Asaresult,theprotestsinthe
narratorstextandthedebatesaboutslaverytakeinbutameagreplaceinthetarget
text.Toalargeextent,HarrietBeecherStowesintellectualprotestsinthenarrators
textandinconversationsaboutslaveryarethereforesilencedinthetargettext.
InthesourcetextBeecherStowewantedtoproveblackswerenotinferiorto
whitesandthereforeoftenelaboratedonthesupposedtraitsoftheblackandwhite
race.ThedescriptionofUncleTomshouseholdinchapterIIprovidesa
representativeexampleofhowDeZeeuwconsistentlyomittedsuchdescriptionsof
blacksandwhites.Inthischapterhenotjustdeletesthedescriptionofthesupposed
cookingtraitsoftheblackrace,butalsoomitsAuntChloesfavourableremarks
abouttheintellectualcapacitiesofwhites(p.2022vs.1113).Therefore,eventhough
positivecommentsontheblackraceareomitted,thishasnotledtoadiscriminatory
orunbalanceddescriptionoftheracesinfavourofthewhites.
However,BeecherStowedidnotonlyprotestagainstslaveryinanintellectual
manner,butalsobyinvolvingherreadersemotionallyinthefateandlivesofthe
protagonists.Asaresult,thereadersbecameawareoftheinjusticeofslavery,
becausetheyempathisedwiththeslaves.BeecherStowewantedherreadersto
imaginethemselvesinthepositionoftheslavesandthusrealisetheinjusticeof
slavery,asherdirectaddressesofthereadersmakeclear.And,Omotherthatreads
this,asthereneverbeeninyourhouseadrawer,oracloset,theopeningofwhich
hasbeentoyouliketheopeningagainofalittlegrave?(82).Inthetargettextthis
emotionalinvolvementwiththeprotagonistsisamorepowerfulargumentagainst
slaverythaninthesourcetext,becauseintellectualargumentsagainstitareomitted,
aswasshownabove.Besides,becausetherathertheoreticalanddescriptivepartsof
thesourcetextareomitted,whatremainsisasuspensefulstory.DeZeeuwdoesnot
focusonthedifferencesbetweenblackandwhite,butstressesthatblacksandwhites
experiencethesameemotions.Therefore,thereadereasilyidentifieswiththeblack
protagonists.
68
EventhoughDeZeeuwletshisreadersidentifywiththeblackprotagonists,
hedoesnotseemtoshareBeecherStowesfierceangeragainstslavery,which
probablymayhavebeencausedbyhiswritingaboutitinretrospect.Thebitterness
ofGeorgeandAuntChloeischeckedinthetargettext.InthesourcetextGeorge
exclaims
Itsallmisery,misery,misery!Mylifeisbitteraswormwood;theverylifeis
burningoutofme.Imapoor,miserable,forlorndrudge;Ishallonlydragyou
downwithme,thatsall.Whatstheuseofourtryingtodoanything,trying
toknowanything,tryingtobeanything?Whatstheuseofliving?IwishI
wasdead!(16).
InthetargettexthisangerandbitternessaresoftenedandGeorgesimplywishesik
woudatikzelfooknooitwasgeboren!(9).AuntChloealsofindsitextremelyhard
toreconcileherselftothefateofUncleTom.UncleTomiscomfortedbyhisbelieve
thatGodwilltakecareofhim.ImintheLordshands,(...)Letsthinkonour
marcies(89).AuntChloeisnotabletotakeoverhisresignedattitude:
Marcies!saidAuntChloe;dontseenomarcyint!tantright!tantrightit
shouldbeso!Masrneveroughtterleftitsothatyecouldbetookforhisdebts.
Yevearnthimallhegetsforye,twiceover.Heowedyeyerfreedom,and
oughtterginttoyeryearsago.Mebbehecanthelphimselfnow,butIfeelits
wrong.Nothingcantbeatthataroutome.Sichafaithfulcritturasyeve
been,andallerssothisbusinessforeyerowneveryway,andreckonedon
himmorethanyerownwifeandchilen!Themassellsheartsloveandhearts
bloodtogetouttharscrapes,deLordllbeuptoem!(89).
However,inthetargettextevenAuntChloeseemsmorepreparedtoacceptUncle
TomissoldawayandnolongerbitterlyinferstheLordtopunishpeoplethattrade
inslaves:MeneerShelbyhadjenooitmogenverkopen.tIswasmoois:schulden
makenendanjebesteneger,diemenheeftervoorverkopen.Jehebtveelmeervoor
hemverdiend,danhijnuvoorjekrijgt(38).Clearly,thebitternessofmany
protagonistsaboutslaveryhassubsidedinthetargettext.
AccordingtovanCoillietheaestheticfunctionofacertainbookissuccessfulif
therelationbetweenformandcontentisharmonious(22,1999).BeecherStowe
attainedthisharmonyinthesourcetext,becauseshemanagedtogivearealistic
descriptionofblackslaveculture.HercharactersspeakinatypicalAfricanAmerican
dialect,singnegrospiritualsorattendcampmeetingsandeachdealinadifferent
waywiththeirenslavement.BecauseDeZeeuwdidnotinventacreativealternative
forthecharacteristicdialectoftheslaves,theiraccentnolongergivesthemawayand
characterisesthem.Besides,songsplayanimportantroleinthesourcetext.Theyare
sungatemotionallychargedmoments,e.g.whenSt.Claredies.P.DeZeeuwdoes
nottranslatesongsliterallyandneitherpreservesthem,butreplacesthembyan
69
existingDutchequivalent.Ontheonehandthismakesthetextunderstandableand
recognizabletoyoungreaders,butontheotherhanditisnolongerclearthatblacks
hadtheirownsongs,thesocallednegrospirituals,thatoftenhadtheiroriginin
sufferingandthereforeexpressedanintenselongingforGodtobringjusticeand
freedom.Clearly,inthetargettexttherelationbetweenformandcontentisless
obviousandblackslavecultureisdrawnlessconvincinglybecausetheirdialectand
songsaredomesticated.
Inshort,DeZeeuwdoesnotdepictblackcultureasrealisticallyasBeecher
Stoweandneitherdescribessupposedtraitsoftheblackrace.Atthesametime,the
protestsofsomeprotagonistsagainstslaveryarechecked.Whereasinthesourcetext
HarrietBeecherStowefiercelyprotestedagainstslaveryandwantedtoproveby
intellectualargumentsandtheemotionalinvolvementofherreadersthatblacks
werenotinferiortowhites,DeZeeuwsfocusseemstobemoreonwritinga
suspensefulstoryaboutsympatheticblackcharacters.Thethemeofraceisless
elaboratedandthereforedevaluated,becauseDeZeeuwomitteddescriptive
passagesandontheoppositestressedtheactionandsuspenseofthesourcetext.
7.3.2InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Religion&Gender
Apartfromrace,thesourcetextalsofocussedonreligionandgender.Atthe
timeBeecherStowewasrevolutionaryinwritinganescapestoryaboutawoman
slave,Eliza.Generally,escapestorieswerewrittenaboutorbymen.Inotheraspects
hernovelalsostressedwomansqualitiesandrights.Sheimplicitlydescribedthe
sexualhumiliationsslavewomensufferedfromandprotestedagainstthefancy
trade.InUTC,BeecherStowepraiseswomenandmotherswhotrytoexertamoral
influenceontheirhusbands,andturnthesocialtideinthisunimpressivemanner.
However,thesocialtidehadalreadyturnedandwomenhadgainedmorerightsat
thetimeDeZeeuwpublishedhisadaptation.Asaresult,therevolutionaryaspectsof
thesourcetexthadbecomequiteordinaryandacceptablearoundthe1940s.
Therefore,genderisnolongerofspecificthematicimportanceinthetargettext.
Inthesourcetext,EvaandUncleTomaresetasanexampleofChristianwell
doingandendurancetothereaders.Apartfromthat,bothareassignedtypological
characteristicsinthattheyresembleJesus.Evahasanangeliccharacterandeven
expressesthewishtodieforotherpeopleifshecouldsavetheminthatmanner:I
canunderstandwhyJesuswantedtodieforus.(...)IvefeltthatIwouldbegladto
die,ifmydyingcouldstopallthismisery.Iwoulddieforthem,TomifIcould(255).
HerlifeischaracterisedbyherloveofGodandotherpeopleanddespitebeing
terriblysad,herdeathbedisinherentlyhopeful:IbelieveinHim,andinafewdays
IshallseeHim(270).LikeEva,UncleTompersonifiesallChristianvirtues.
Remarkably,likeEvahewantstodietosavesomeoneelse,butthissomeoneelseis
hismurdererLegree.Masr,ifyouwassick,orintrouble,ordying,andIcouldsave
ye,Idgiveyemyheartsblood;and,iftakingeverydropofbloodinthispoorold
bodywouldsaveyourprecioussoul,Idgiveemfreely,astheLordgavehisforme
70
(382).Finally,heresemblesEvainhislongingforheaven:TheLordsboughtme,
andisgoingtotakemehomeandIlongtogo(387).
OnewouldexpecttheprotestantChristianDeZeeuwtodescribethese
passagesinsomedetail.ItisclearDeZeeuwdidtakereligiousnotionsinaccount,as
hecarefullyavoidedexclamationsandcursesthatcouldbeconsideredoffensive,like
O,Lord!andthedevils.However,thesearethekeypassageswhatconcernsthe
religiousangleofthebookandthesedescribethecharactersattheirreligiousbest.
Remarkably,DeZeeuwdescribesEvasillnessanddeathbutbrieflyinchapterXV.
Forthissinglechapterhecontractedarecordnumberoffivechaptersofthesource
text(XXIIXXVI).Clearly,DeZeeuwdidnotlingeronthereligiouspassages,asA.G.
Bruinsesdid.Ontheopposite,heevenomittedthemeaningfulkeypassageinwhich
UncleTomassuresLegreehewouldwanttogiveyemyheartsblood.Itarethese
remarksthatdriveLegreemadandmakehimkillUncleTom.Inthetargettextitis
lessapparenthowtheirfaithmotivatesthecharacterstoendureandlovetheir
enemies,becauseDeZeeuwomittedorradicallyshortenedkeypassages.
Inthepassagesmentionedabove,BeecherStowedescribeshowthefaithof
EvaandUncleTomisbroughttoapeak.However,BeecherStowealsodepictsthe
unbeliefofGeorgeandthereligiouscrisesUncleTomexperiences.BecauseDe
Zeeuwshortensthestoryandfocusesonpassagesandchaptersthatdescribeaction,
hedoesnotpaymuchattentiontotheinwardreligiousdevelopmentofthe
characters.GeorgesinabilitytocometotermswithChristianityisonlydescribed
briefly,asistheseriousreligiouscrisisofUncleTomattheplantationofLegree.
However,DeZeeuwstranslationstrategywastosummariseandshortenthesource
textandtofocusonthepassagesthatdescribeaction.Therefore,DeZeeuws
translationstrategieswithregardtoreligionareconsistent.Nevertheless,asaresult
theprotagonistsarenotcharacterisedthatwellandbecomeflattercharacters,
becausetheirreligiousmotifsremainunclear.
Inshort,whereasreligionisanimportantthemeinthesourcetext,itis
devaluatedinthetargettext.DeZeeuwomittedkeypassagesandpaidlittle
attentiontothereligiousmotifsanddevelopmentofthecharacters.Nevertheless,his
treatmentofthethemereligionisinlinewithhistranslationstrategytoshortenthe
sourcetextandtofocusonactionratherthantheinwarddevelopmentprotagonists.
6.4Society
UTCdidinfluencetheabolitioninAmericaandHollandandwasfirstand
foremostanovelfullofsocialcriticism.However,aftertheabolition,thesocial
criticismofthenovelhadnolongeracontemporaryrelevance,butanhistorical
relevance.Still,UTCremainedpopularandgainedthestatusofaclassic.Translators
whoadaptedUTCforchildren,hadtofindabalancebetweentellingthehistorical
truthaboutslaveryandmakingthenovelsuitableforajuvenileaudience.Thatoften
entailedamitigationofhistory.InthecaseofDutchadaptations,itisinterestingto
findoutwhetherthetranslatorsappliedthenoveltoslaveryintheDutchcolonies.
71
InEenKijkjeindeHutvanoomTomP.DeZeeuwdoesnotlinkthestory
implicitlyorexplicitlytotheDutchslavery.Naturally,theactivatingmessageofthe
sourcetextwasnolongerrelevantatthetimeDeZeeuwpublishedhisadaptation,
becauseslaveryhadalreadybeenabolishedintheDutchcoloniesfordecades.
Nevertheless,thenovelstillhasahistoricalrelevance.Intheprefaceisstatedthe
novelishistoricallyinterestingwithregardtotheabolitioninAmerica.Referencesto
slaveryintheEuropeancoloniesareavoided.Byignoringthis,theyoungreading
publiccouldhavebeengiventheimpressionthattheenslavementofblackswasan
entirelyAmericanmatter,ratherthanaworldwideenterprise.
6.5ChildImage&ChildrensLiterature
RiittaOittinenstatesthattranslationsforchildrenoftenconformwithadult
pedagogicideals(82,2000).Naturally,thetranslationstrategiestranslatorsapplyto
atexttoletitconformwiththeseeducationalprinciples,dependontheirchild
image.Translatorsdirecttheirwordsatsomekindofchild,naveorunderstanding,
innocentorexperienced(vanCoillie&Verschueren,412).Inpracticethisregularly
entailsthattabooslikesex,violence,injustice,rudelanguageandreligionare
omitted,becausetheyareconsideredunsuitableforchildren.Obviously,DeZeeuws
translationstrategiesalsorevealhischildimageandopinionsaboutchildrens
literature.
TheseriesOudGoud,whichUTCispartof,aimsattargetreadersof
approximatelytenyearsandolder.Inthisseries,DeZeeuwadaptedhistoricalnovels
forchildren.Inparagraph4.5wasdescribedthatvanCoilliestatesthatchildrenfrom
theageoftenyearsonhavedevelopedtheabilitytoreasonabstractlyandto
appreciatenovelsthattakeplaceinanunfamiliarsetting.Consequently,theyhave
learnedtoappreciateandunderstandhistoricalnovels,storiesinaforeignsetting,
andbookswithseveralstorylines.Besides,theyhaveacquiredtheskillstoempathise
withprotagoniststoagreatextentandtodealwithethicalproblems.Clearly,De
Zeeuwsadaptationhasallthesecharacteristicsandaimsatthisagegroup.
Intheprefacewasstatedthatthebookwasadaptedbecauseithadan
entertainingandemotionalfunction,apartfromtheinformativefunction.De
Zeeuwsaimwithhisserieswastowritebooksthatwerebothinformativeinan
inconspicuouswayandatthesametimeprovidedanentertainingread.Indeed,De
Zeeuwhasdeletedandavoidedallaspectsoftheoriginalthatcouldhinderthe
youngreader.BeecherStoweslongandcomplexsentencesaresimplifiedandher
elaboratedescriptionsandargumentationsareshortened.Thus,DeZeeuwcarefully
adaptedthetexttothelinguisticknowledgeofchildren.Clearly,DeZeeuwwas
awareofthefactthatsuspenseisaseducerinchildrensliterature(vanCoillie,95,
1999).Withthedeletionofthedescriptivepassagesandtheoreticaldiscussionsabout
slavery,heomittedthepartsofthebookthatcouldbeconsideredboringand
irrelevantbychildren.Whatremainsisanexcitingstoryaboutthefateofapoorand
72
sympatheticUncleTomandasuspensefulstoryaboutanimmenselybraveGeorge
andEliza.
GteKlingbergstatedthatinadaptationsforchildrenoftenanything
consideredunsuitableisdeleted.Asaresult,theyoungreadersarepreventedto
obtainknowledgeoftheworldaroundthem(Oittinen,91,2000).Obviously,taboo
subjectslikesexuality,physicalityandviolencewereconsideredunsuitablein
childrensbooks(Ghesquire,23).VanCoillieaddsreligiontothelistofsubjectsthat
aremostfrequentlyadapted(28,2005)).Interestingly,DeZeeuwdidapplydifferent
strategiestothesetaboos.DeZeeuwstranslationstrategiesrevealhisconservative
approachofsometaboosubjects,seeingthatheavoidsoromitsreferencesto
sexualityandphysicality.InthesourcetextBeecherStowedoesnotignorethatmany
slaveownersexploitedtheirfemaleslavessexually.GeorgeandElizaHarrisareboth
mulattos,childrenbornoutofsuchaninterracialsexualrelationship.Inthetarget
textP.DeZeeuwavoidsthetermsmulattoorquadroon.
ST: Atthismomentthedoorwaspushedgentlyopen,andayoungquadroon
woman,apparentlyabouttwentyfive,enteredtheroom(5).
TT: NogvoormeneerShelbykonantwoorden,gingdedeurlangzaamopenen
kwameenjongevrouwbinnen.Zehadeenbijnablankgelaat(6).
DeZeeuwdoesnotrefertothesexualabuseoffemaleslaves.Anextremeexampleof
hisprotectivetranslationstrategyisprovidebythedescriptionofCassy.Whereasin
thesourcetextCassywasthemistressofherowner,inthetargettextDeZeeuwlets
herbeproperlymarried.
ST: CassytellsherlifestorytoUncleTom.Shewasthemistressofawhiteman,
whofinallysoldherandherchildrenaway(336341).Afterwardsshewas
abusedbyseveralotherowners.
TT: Laterkreegikeenmanentweelievekinderen.(...)Maarmijnbeidekinderen
werdenverkocht.(...)Ikwerdvandeeennaardeanderverkocht(113).
Likesexuality,referencestophysicalityareconsideredtaboobyDeZeeuw.Inthe
translationoftheexamplebelow,DeZeeuwomittedthereferencestobreastfeeding
andthetruecauseofthedeathofthebaby.
ST: itwasthepeartestlittlething!andmississheseemedtothinkaheapont,at
first;itnevercrieditwaslikelyandfat.Butmissistucksick,andItended
her;andItuckthefever,andmymilkallleftme,andthechilditpinedtoskin
andbone,andmissiswouldntbuymilkforit.Shewouldntheartome,when
ItelledherIhadntmilk.ShesaidsheknowedIcouldfeeditonwhatother
folkseat;andthechildkinderpinedandcried,andcried,andcried,dayand
night,andgotallgonetoskinandbones,andmissisgotsotaginit,andshe
saidtwantnothinbutcrossness(201202).
73
TT: Toenikhierkwam,hadiknognkleinkind,verteldePrue,enikhoopte,
datikditzoumogenhouden.Maarmevrouwhierwasziekenikmoesthaar
oppassen.Mijnkleintjehuildenogalendaarkonmevrouwniettegen.Toen
hebbenzehetschaapopeenzolderkamertjegestopt,opdatmevrouwhetniet
meerzouhorenhuilen.Daarheefthetzichopeennachtdoodgeschreeuwd
(71).
Remarkably,DeZeeuwdidnotapplyalikewiseconservativetranslationstrategyto
thepassagesthatdescribeviolence,butregularlypreservessomequitehorrid
passages.However,thedescriptionsofthehorrorsofslaveryareindeedcarefully
balancedbytheinherentlyhopefulsubplotabouttheescapeofGeorgeandEliza
(Connolly,109).Inthesourcetexttheviolencethatiscommittedagainstslavesis
describedindetail.DeZeeuwstranslationstrategywithregardtoviolenceisnot
consistent:heleavessomethesepassagesintact,butomitsorsoftensotherviolent
passages.InthefirstexampleDeZeeuwhasnotdeletedtheviolence,intheothershe
slightlysoftenedit.
ST: Hereyouare,onaloneplantation,tenmilesfromanyother,intheswamps;
notawhitepersonherewhocouldtestifyifyouwereburnedaliveifyou
werescalded,cutintoinchpieces,setupforthedogstotear,orhungupand
whippedtodeath(333).
TT: Dezeplantageligtmiddenindemoerassen,tienmijlbijelkeplantage
vandaan.Hijkanjelevendlatenverbrandenofjedoorznhondenlaten
verscheuren,niemandkomtdaarooitachtererzijnhieralzoveelslaven
vermoord(112).
ST: Howwouldyouliketobetiedtoatree,andhaveaslowfirelituparound
ye?(352).
TT: Hangjedanlieveraaneenboom?(116).
ST: Downhefellintothechasm,cracklingdownamongtrees,bushes,logs,loose
stones,tillhelay,bruisedandgroaning,thirtyfeetbelow(185).
TT: Gelukkigwerdzijnvaldooreenpaarstruikengebroken,zodathijlevendop
debodemvandekloofterechtkwam(56).
Cursingandrudelanguageisconsideredtabooinchildrensbooks.DeZeeuw
consistentlyomitsorsoftenscursesorrudelanguage.Inthesourcetextcharacters
areregularlydescribedorscoldedtobedevils.DeZeeuwalwayssoftensthisinthe
translation,butaliteraltranslationwouldnotsoundnaturalinDutcheither.
ST: hewasacleverfellow,Tomwas,onlytheverydevilwithniggers(8).
TT: TomLoker,datwaseenknappevent,maareenbeulvoordenegers(7).
74
ST: Thegalsgotsevendevilsinher,Ibelieve!saidHaley.Howlikeawildcat
shejumped!(58).
TT: Ikhebzoietsnognooitgezien,meendeHaley,zesprongalsnwildekat
(29).
ST: Damnation!hescreamed,()pullingfuriouslyatthehair,asifitburned
him.Wheredidthiscomefrom?Takeitoff!burnitup!(344).
TT: Legreesprongovereindenkeekverdwaasdnaardekrul.Neemwegdat
ding!krijstehij,gauwwat!Inhetvuurermee!(114).
Inshort,DeZeeuwclearlynotlostsightoftheinterestsofthechild.Withhis
adaptationofUTCheaimsatareadingpublicoftenyearsandolder.Hecarefully
avoidedbecomingpreachyandomittedthepassagesthatcouldbeconsideredboring
orincomprehensiblebychildren.Nevertheless,DeZeeuwdoesnottreattaboos
consistently.Whereasheavoidsallreferencestophysicalityandinterracialsexuality,
hedoesnotomitthedescriptionsofviolence.Theresultofhistranslationstrategiesis
anexcitingbook.Unfortunately,thebookisrobbedofsomeofitsthematicstrength
onbehalfofthesuspense.
6.6TheIllustrations
DehutvanoomTomisrichlyillustratedbyVictorRudolfAnselmJoubertvan
SchoonhovenvanBeurden,usingthepseudonymRoothvic.Thedigitalcatalogueof
theKoninklijkeBibliotheekmentionshelivedfrom1900till1977andillustrateda
largenumberofchildrensbooks.Mostofthe26chaptersareillustratedwithasmall
blackandwhitepicture.Apartfrom24smallillustrations,thebookcontainsfourfull
pageillustrations(seebelow).Theillustrationsaredrawninarealisticstyle.Roothvic
carefullyadjustedthepicturestothetextualatmosphereofthechapter.Therefore,
theillustrationsvaryalot.TheillustrationsthataccompanythechapteraboutUncle
TomspeacefulcabinandthechapterabouthappytimesattheSt.Clarehousehold
arehappy,merryandpeaceful.ThepicturesthatillustrateGeorgeandElizasescape
aregloomyandfullofaction.Kolfinstatedthatillustrationsinchildrensversionsof
UTCregularlydepictreligiousscenesorpassagesaboutconciliationbetweenblack
andwhite.Roothvicdrewbutfourofsuchpictures,allsituatedattheSt.Clare
household.
Oppositetothesepeacefulpictures,Roothvicdidnothesitatetodepict(the
threatof)violence.OneofthefullpageillustrationsshowshowLegreeorderstokill
UncleTom(seebelow).Onvariousotherillustrationswhipsarefullinsight.Kolfin
remarkedthatinadaptationsforchildrenthesufferingofslaveswasnotdepictedtill
thirtyyearsaftertheabolition.Someillustratorswereconvincedthatdepicting
violencewasunsuitableinchildrensbooks.Clearly,Roothvicdoesnotsharethose
feelings.
75
Throughoutthebook,manyoftheillustrationsdepictanaction:UncleTom
savingEva,AuntChloecooking,Legreethreateningwithhiswhip.Afewofthe
picturesarestilllivesdepictingobjectslikeaBibleoraletter.Obviously,what
characterisestheillustrationsistheirdiversity,asafewexamplesbelowshow.
Inshort,DeZeeuwsadaptationandRoothvicsillustrationformaunity.
Formandcontentareinharmony.LikeDeZeeuw,Roothvicfocussedonthe
suspensefulpassagesbyillustratingtheminasuspenseful,threateningandgloomy
manner.Illustrationsdepictingactionandviolenceoutnumberthepeacefulimages.
Inlinewiththetext,Roothvicdidillustratebutfewharmoniouspassagesand
focussedonaction.Therefore,theillustrationsfitinwiththetextworld.
Thefourfullpageillustrations:

TomandEvaTomiskilled
LittleHarryamusesMr.ShelbyTomLokerfallsinaravine
76
Chapter7.TextualAnalysisDehutvanoomTombyEdFranck
7.1ATertiumComparationis
Inchapterfive,thetertiumcomparationisofthesourcetextwasfilledin.In
thesemanticpragmaticskeletonbelowthedifferencesbetweenUncleTomsCabinby
HarrietBeecherStoweandthetargettextDehutvanoomTombyEdFranckare
visualised.
Whichtext?
Writer:HarrietBeecherStowe/EdFranck
Year: 2003
Title: DehutvanoomTom
Decl.:
Translator: EdFranck
Illustrator:
Publisher:Antwerpen:HetLaatsteNieuws/Paperview
Series:DeGoudenJeugdcollectie
Nr.OfPages:244p.
Age:c.797
Editions:1
st
ed.2003Davidsfond/Infodok
2
nd
ed.2003HetLaatsteNieuws/Paperview(published
withalicenseofDavidsfonds)
Whoisthetranslator?
EdFranckisthepennameofEduardorEddyVrancken.ThisFlemishwriterwas
bornin1941andstartedwritinginhisforties.Beforehestartedwritingfulltime,he
wasateacherofEnglishandDutchonasecondaryschool.Eventhoughhedidnot
makehisdebutasawriteruntil1985,hehasbuiltupanoeuvrethatconsistsofmore
than50titles.Apartfrombeingateacherandwriter,Franckreviewedchildrens
books.Hisoeuvrevariesfrompoetry,historicalnovelsanddetectivestochildrens
booksandretellingsofclassicstories.ThisvarietyisduetoFranckswishtolookfor
newchallengesinwritingandhiscontinuallytryingoutofnewgenres.
ApartfromUTC,Franckretoldseveralotherclassics,asRobinsonCrusoe,MobyDick,
RomeoandJulia.Heexplainedheadaptedthesebooksbecausetheyareso
suspensefulthattheyengrossthereadersattentionandletthembegluedtotheir
books.Thus,Franckletshischoiceofclassicsdependontheir(supposed)effecton
thereaders.Franckwantedtokeepthecoreofthestoriesintact,buttooktheliberty
toomitpassagesthatinhisopinionwouldmerelybeadistractionfromthiscore
77
andhindertheyoungreaders.Therefore,ingeneralhisadaptationstrategyisto
omitlongdescriptionsandsentimentalormoralisticpassagesandtoremoveminor
figuresandextensivedescriptionsofpersons.Ontheotherhand,heregularlyadds
depthtotheemotionsofthecharactersandenlivensdialogues.
Unlikemanyotherwritersofchildrensbooks,Franckoeuvreischaracterisedbyhis
opendescriptionsoftheharshaspectsoflifeandhisrefusaltogiveallhisbooksa
happyending.Hesimplydescribeshisreasonfordoingsobyexplainingthatreal
lifecanalsobehardtochildren.
Hisprotagonistsareoftenselfconsciouscharacterswithafightingspirit,whotryto
overcometheharshersidesoflifeandrefusetotastedefeat(vanCoillie,2,2003).
Franckispraisedforhisvirtuousandvarieduseoflanguageandhisabilityto
realiseaharmonybetweenformandcontentofthebook.Besides,criticshave
praisedthepsychologicalprofundityofhisbooks(J.Linderset.al,167).
Remarkably,hisbeingaprolificwriterdidnothinderthequalityofthebooks,ashe
receivedseveralimportantFlemishprizes,liketheBoekenwelpandBoekenleeuw.
(vanCoillie,LexiconvandeJeugdliteratuur,18,2003)
Who?
- Franckhasomittedsomeminorcharacters,likemembersofthe
householdofSt.Clare,andservantsofsenatorBird(chapterIX).
- ThestorylineaboutTopsyisomitted.(chapterXX,XXV)
Where?
Thestorytakesplaceinthesameplacesandareasasintheoriginal,apartfrom
Liberia.ThejourneyofGeorgeandElizaendsinCanada,ratherthanAfrica.
Whathappens?(plot)
EdFranckhaskepttheplotandsubplotintact,butsummarisedandshortenedthe
story.The44chaptersofthesourcetextarereducedto26chapters.Theadaptation
approximatelymeasureshalfthesizeofthesourcetext.Franckmergedchapters
fromthesourcetextinthetranslation.Theplotisslightlychanged,becausethe
storylineaboutTopsyisdeleted.
ThelistbelowshowshowFranckchangedthedivisionofthechapters.Atthesame
timethelistshowstowhichpartsofthestoryFranckpaidmostattention.The
numbersinRomanscriptarethechaptersinthesourcetext.
- 1I,II
- 2III
- 3IV
- 4V
- 5VI
- 6VII
- 7VIII
- 8IX
- 9X
78
- 10XI
- 11XII
- 12XIII
- 13XIV,XV
- 14XV,XVI
- 15XVII
- 16XVIII,XIX,XXI
- 17XXXVII
- 18XXII,XXIII,XXIV,XXVI,XXVII,
- 19XXVIII,XXIX
- 20XXX,XXXI,XXXII
- 21XXXIII,XXXIV
- 22XXXV,XXXVI
- 23XXXVIII,XXXIX
- 24XL,XLI
- 25XLII
- 26XLIII
Whatisthetheme?
Theslaveryoftheblackswasagrossinjustice,becauseblackandwhiteareequal
andhavethesamerights.
Whereisthenarrator?
Thenarratorisomniscient.
Whereasinthesourcetextthenarratorstextandcharacterstextalternate,Ed
Franckomittedorsummarisedmostofthenarratorstext.
7.2DehutvanoomTombyFranck:TranslationStrategies
EdFrancksadaptationofUTCisaccompaniedbyanafterword,wherein
usefulinformationisgivenaboutthesourcetext,thesourceauthorandthesource
culture.Apartfromthat,Franckelaboratelydescribeshistranslationnormsand
translationstrategies.GillianLatheysayssuchanepilogueoffersarareand
outspokenopportunitytoreadastatementofintent(2)ofthetranslator.These
statementsareinteresting,becausetranslatorsalwaysbasewhetherconsciouslyor
subconsciouslytheirtranslationstrategiesontheirpersonalinterpretationofthe
sourcetext.Apartfromthat,theirtranslationscanbeinfluencedbysocialnormsthat
areimposedonthemandcommercialmotifs.
Translatorsdonotsimplystandinbetweensourcetextandtargetaudience,
fromthebeginningtheyarealwaysanintrinsicpartofthenegotiating
dialogueitself,holdingafragile,unstablemiddlebetweenthesocialforces
79
thatactuponthem(theimposednormsofthepublishingindustriesandthe
expectationsoftheadultswhoactasbuyersandoftenascoreaders),their
owninterpretationofthesourcetextandtheirassessmentofthetarget
audience(whatarethetargetaudiencescognitiveandemotionalabilities,its
tastesandneeds?)(VanCoillie&Verschuren,preface,v).
Whereasmosttranslatorsremaininvisible,Franckrealisedhetookinakeyrolein
thetranslationprocessandexplainedhistranslationstrategies.Everytranslation
startswithaninterpretationofthesourcetext.Francksafterwordshowshowhe
interpretedthesourcetextandwhatheconsideredtobeessenceofthenovel.
FranckpaysexplicitattentiontothefactthatinHarrietBeecherStowesdayandage
writingwomenwerestillararityandregardedwithsuspicion.Inhisdescriptionhe
stressesthepassionatecharacterofboththeauthorandherbook.
Eenboekdatschreeuwde,beschuldigdeenbijdestrotgreepinplaatsvante
keuvelenentezeuren(),dateenberoepdeedophethartvandelezer,
zonderzijnverstandteonderschatten.Endatnogwelvandehandvaneen
vrouw.Eenvrouwdiezichblijkbaarnietwenstetehoudenaande
stilzwijgendeafsprakenomtrentdeonderwerpendievoorvrouwelijke
auteursgeschiktwerdengeacht!(247)
ItisnotsurprisingFrancksympathiseswithBeecherStowe,becausesheresembles
hisownprotagonistsinherselfconsciousness,senseofjustice,andfightingspirit.
FranckrejectsthetwentiethcenturycritiquethatUTCisaninherentlyracistbook,by
pointedlyplacingthebookinitshistoricalcontext.Inthismanner,heexplains
BeecherStowespleafornonviolentresistanceagainstslaverywasnosignof
weakness,butofwisdom.
ApartfromplacingUTCinitscontext,Franckexplainswhichtranslationstrategies
heappliedtothevariousaspectsofthesourcetext.Hecarefullycommentsonhis
strategieswithregardtothelengthofthesourcetext,thesentimentalityofthe
descriptions,theChristianaspectofthesourcetext,andthedialects.RitaGhesquiere
praisesFranckspreciseandconscientiousworkingmethodinadaptingclassics.
Dezorgenaandacht()springtmeteeninhetoog.Deauteurs
verantwoordenineennawoorddegemaaktekeuzen.Dejongelezerkrijgtniet
alleeninformatieoverdebasistekst,maarookoverwatergeschraptwerden
waarom,enoverdestilistischeenstructureleaanpassingen(73).
InthefollowingtextualanalysisFrancksstrategieswillbeanalysedinmoredetail.
Franckdefendshistranslationchoicesbyreferringtothetargetreader.Repeatedly
hestatesthetargettextwouldhavebecometootedious,toolongwindingortoo
religiousforthereader,hadhenotappliedhisparticularstrategies.Franckexplicitly
wantstomakethevaluablesourcetextaccessibletothemodernreader.Heexpresses
80
hisloyaltytothereaderbymakingdecisionswiththereaderinview.Herealisesa
literaltranslationcouldneverconveytheforceandfunofthesourcetexttothe
youngtargetreaderandthereforetakeslibertieswiththesourcetext,whileatthe
sametimehetriestopreservethemeaningandatmosphereofthesourcetext.
Alduswordt,zonderhetboekteverraden,hetinvoelingsvermogenvande
modernelezernietnodeloosopdeproefgesteld(252).Clearly,Franckaimsat
dynamicequivalence,ratherthanaliteralformaltranslation.
Plot
HarrietBeecherStoweneverintendedtowritethenovelUTC.Initially,shejust
wrotesketchesfortheweeklyNationalEra.Thesketchesexpandedtoamoving
serial,andtheserialappearedinbookformasUTC.However,becausetheserial
appearedwithaweeklyinterval,BeecherStoweregularlyhadtofreshenupthe
readersmemory.Therefore,sherepeatedimportantinformationandproand
antislaveryarguments.AccordingtoFranck,UTChasbecomeratherlongwinded
andrepetitive,duetoitsoriginalappearanceasaseries.InhisafterwordFranck
thereforeexplainshismainstrategyinadaptingUTCwastoabridgethesourcetext.
Ikhebtelanguitgesponnenscnesenbeschouwendepassagesingekort,evenals
eenaantalherhalingen(2501).Asaresult,thesourcetextisreducedtohalfitssize.
Franckgenerallyshortenedthesourcetextbysummarizingchaptersandparagraphs,
ratherthanomittingthem.FranckstranslationofchapterXXIIIprovidesa
representativeexampleofhistranslationstrategy.BeecherStowedescribeshow
duringUncleTomsstayattheSt.Clarehousehold,littleEvaisvisitedbyhercousin
Henrique.ThechapterfunctionstoshowEvahasaninfalliblesenseofjustice,asshe
reproveshercousinnottobeathisslaveDodo.InthesourcetextEvaconfronts
Henriquewithhisbehaviouranddiscussesthetreatmentofslaveswithhim:How
couldyoubesocruelandwickedtopoorDodo?(247).Franckleavestheir
discussionoutandjustdescribesEvasattitude:
Evastondmetfonkelendeogentoetekijken.Haarademperstezichsamenin
haarkeel,zekongeenwoorduitbrengen.Woedendliepzedeverandainen
zeweigerdemetHenriquetegaanrijden,hoehardhijookkwamaandringen
(170).
Thediscussionaboutslaverythatevolvesbetweenthefathersofthechildrenis
reducedtoitspowerfulessence.Maartochvindjediteengoedemethodeomje
zoonhetbeginvanonzegrondwetduidelijktemaken:Allemensenwordenvrijen
gelijkgeboren?(171).Inthismannerthechapterofsevenpagesissummarisedby
Francktohalveitsoriginalsize.ThischapteralsoshowshowFrancktranslated
recurringdiscussionsaboutslavery.WhereasBeecherStowerepeatedlyletsevery
characterhaveitssayaboutslavery,Franckreducesthediscussionstotheiressence
andavoidsrepetition.InthechapteraboutHenriquethisentailsFranckonlyletsthe
81
fathersdiscussthetreatmentofslavesandomitstheconversationofthechildren
aboutthesametopic.
Apartfromsummarisingwholechapters,FranckshortensBeecherStowes
longdescriptionsofpersonsdrastically,asthefragmentbelowshows.
ST: Hewasashort,thicksetman,withcoarse,commonplacefeatures,andthat
swaggeringairofpretensionwhichmarksalowmanwhoistryingtoelbow
hiswayupwardsintheworld.Hewasmuchoverdressed,inagaudyvestof
manycolours,ablueneckerchief,bedroppedgailywithyellowspots,and
arrangedwithaflauntingtie,quiteinkeepingwiththegeneralairoftheman.
Hishands,largeandcoarse,wereplentifullybedeckedwithrings;andhe
woreaheavygoldwatchchain,withabundleofsealsofportentoussize,and
agreatvarietyofcolours,attachedtoitwhich,intheardourofconversation,
hewasinthehabitofflourishingandjinglingwithevidentsatisfaction.His
conversationwasinfreeandeasydefianceofMurraysGrammar,andwas
garnishedatconvenientintervalswithvariousprofaneexpressions,whichnot
eventhedesiretobegraphicinouraccountshallinduceustotranscribe(3).
TT: DeslavenhandelaarHaleywaseenkleine,dikkekerelmetgrove
gelaatstrekken.Hijdroegeenblauwedasmetschreeuweriggelebolletjes,een
goudenhorlogekettingeneenreeksopzichtigeringenaanzijnvingers.Zijn
stemklonkteluidenteruw(3).
TheexampleaptlyshowshowFranckmanagedtotypifythecharactersas
impressivelyasinthesourcetext,butinlesstext.Byusingadjectivesthatevoke
strongfeelingsandhavepowerfulconnotations,FranckcharacterisesHaleyasa
pompousandconceitedman.Thus,itareHaleysgarishtieandshowyringsthat
givehimaway.
Ingeneral,Franckhasstayedclosetotheoriginalplotandstorylines.Though
hismainstrategyistosummarisethechapters,Francktookhistimetosetupthe
story:inhistranslationthefirsttenchaptersareparalleltothefirsttenchaptersin
thesourcetext.ThemiddlepartofUTC,thatdescribestheSt.Clarehousehold,is
shortenedmostdrastically.Franckdefendshischoicebystatingikkoosvooreen
hogervertelritme(251).Hisstrategycertainlyspeedsupthestory,becausethe
relativelyunsuspensefuldescriptionofthesafeSt.Clarehouseholdisshortened.As
aresult,themorethrillingpartsofthestoryarestressed.
ThesubplotaboutGeorgeandElizaiskeptintactandcoversafourthofthetarget
text,ratherthananeighthofthesourcetext.Thus,Franckhaschangedtheinternal
balancebetweenplotandsubplot.Asaresult,GeorgeandElizareceiveconsiderably
moreattention.ThisfitsinwithFrancksreaderorientedapproachoftranslation,
becausethebraveandpassionateGeorgeandElizawillmorelikelybeabletoappeal
tomodernreadersthanthemeekandkindUncleTom.
82
FrancksmostremarkabletranslationchoiceistoomitthecharacterofTopsy.This
makesthestructureofthestoryclearer,butalsohassomethematicconsequences
thatwillbediscussedlater.
Phrasing
Whereasinthesourcetextnarratorstextandcharacterstextareinbalance,Franck
severelycutinthenarratorstextinordertomakethetextmorelively.Unlikeother
translatorsofUTC,FranckdidnottranslateBeecherStowescolourfulandvarieduse
oflanguagewithastandardDutch.Thedialectsinthesourcetextgiveuseful
informationaboutthegeographicalandracialbackgroundofthecharacters,andare
alsotellingoftheirintellectanddegreeofcivilisation.Thus,BeecherStoweused
languagetotypifyhercharacters.TheafterwordshowsFranckwasawareofthis
functionoflanguageinUTC:EenapartprobleemvormtdetaaldieHarrietBeecher
gebruiktineenaantaldialogen.Verscheidenepersonages(zowelzwartenals
blanken)sprekeneenonzuiver,gebrokenofdialectischAmerikaansEngels(253).In
histranslation,Franckfocussedontheindividualmannersofspeechofthe
charactersandtranslatedthedialectsinacolourfulandvariedDutch.Thus,the
languagestilltypifiesthecharacters,eventhoughFranckavoidstheunrealisticuseof
existingDutchdialects.
Ikvondhetnietaangewezenomdat[detaaldieHarrietBeechergebruikt]na
tebootsenviaeenhutspotvanVlaamseen/ofNederlandsekromtaal.Ikkoos
ervooromhettevervangendooreenzeerkleurrijkespreekstijlwantdat
wastenslotteheteffectdatHarrietermeeophetooghad(253254).
Thecharactersuseoflanguagetypifiestheirdegreeofcivilisation.Asthequote
aboveindicates,Francktranslatedthedialectsinthesourcetextbyidiolects.The
mannerinwhichFrancktranslatedthespeechofHaleyisrepresentativeofhisability
tocreateidiolects.TheslavetraderHaleyischaracterisedasanuncivilisedand
unfeelingman,greedyforgain,butpleasedwithhimself.
ST: Somefolksdontbelievethereispiousniggers,Shelby,(...)butIdo.Ihada
fellow,now,inthisyerlastlotItooktoOrleanstwasasgoodasameetin
now,really;tohearthatcritterpray;andhewasquitegentleandquitelike.He
fetchedmeagoodsum,too,forIboughthimcheapofamanthatwasbliged
tosellout;soIrealisedsixhundredonhim.Yes,Iconsiderreligiona
valeyablethinginanigger,whenitsagenuinearticle,andnomistake(4).
TT: Bekeerdenegerskunnenwelnsmeevallen,datgeefiktoe.Bijmijnlaatste
troepzateenkerel,nou,diekonprekenalseenbevlogendominee!Ikhebeen
mooibedragvoorhemgevangen.Zeshonderddollarinhethandje,geen
gezeur!Maarkijkuit,erzijnooknegersdiemeteenheiligesmoeleenpsalm
zingenterwijljezeindegatenhoudt.Maarvijfminutenlater,alsjejerug
83
draait?Pats,slaanzejebuitenwestenmeteenknuppelengaanze
ervandoor!(4)
Astheexampleshows,FranckmanagedtotypifyHaleybyhisspeech.Haleys
pompousandbombasticmodeofspeechdefineshimasaconceitedanduncivilised
character.Apartfromthat,Franckregularlyoverdoesthesourcetext,asthelasttwo
addedsentencesshow.Nevertheless,thesesentencesareinlinewithHaleys
characterandmodeofspeech.
ItistellingthatonlythebadguysHaley,LokerandLegreecurseanduserude
language.Obviously,BeecherStowelinkedusingbadlanguagetobeingunchristian
andvillainous.UnlikeDeZeeuwandBruinses,Franckfreelytranslatesrude
languageandusesittodefinehischaracters.Theworsecharactersget,theruderand
moreuncivilisedlanguagetheyuse.BecauseFranckdidnotremoverudelanguage
orlettheslaveholderstalkabouttheirslavesinanicerway,thehorrorsofslavery
areverycleartothereader.
ST: Hewasacleverfellow,Tomwas,onlytheverydevilwithniggerson
principletwas,yousee,forabetterheartedfellerneverbrokebread;twashis
systemsir.IusedtotalktoTom.Why,Tom,Iusedtosay,whenyourgals
takesonandcry,whatstheuseocrackinonemoverthehead,andknockin
onemround?(8).
TT: NeemnuLoker,mijnvroegerecompagnon.Handigeknul,maardeduivel
voordenegers.Hoedikwijlshebikhemnietgezegd:Jongentoch,alsdie
meidenlopentejammeren,wathelpthetdanalsjezehetvleesvandebotten
ranseltofeengatinhunkrijsendekopslaat?(8)
Ironically,theoppositeofslavetraderHaleyistheescapedslaveGeorgeHarris.
WhereasHaleyispompousandconceited,Georgeactsunaffectedly,hasasharp
intellectandagreatsenseofjustice.Thisisalsomirroredinhisspeech,fordespite
hisfierceanger,Georgespeaksinacontrolledandcoherentmanner.Hisrhetorical
wayofspeaking,withouttheslightesttrackofHaleysbombast,showshis
intelligence.
ST: MrWilson,Iknowallthis,saidGeorge.Idorunarisk,buthethrewopen
hisovercoat,andshowedtwopistolsandabowieknife.There!()Imready
forthem!DownsouthIneverwillgo.No!ifitcomestothat,Icanearnmyself
atleastsixfeetoffreesoilthefirstandlastIshalleverowninKentucky!()
MrWilson,youhaveacountry;butwhatcountryhaveI,oranyonelikeme,
bornofslavemothers?Whatlawsarethereforus?Wedontmakethemwe
dontconsenttothemwehavenothingtodowiththem;alltheydoforusis
tocrushus,andkeepusdown(104).
TT: Datweetikmaaraltegoed,meneerWilson,endaaromGeorgesloegzijn
jasopenenlieteenpaarpistoleneneengrootjagersmeszien.Uziet,ikbenop
84
allesvoorbereid.Naarhetzuidengaiknooit.Dannoglievertweemetervrije
grondonderhetgras!Ikwilnietmeerlevenineenstaatdiemijgeenrechten
geeftomdatikuiteenslavenmoederbengeboren.Ikwilnietmeerlevenonder
wettenwaaroverwijniethebbenmogenstemmen!(101)
TheexamplebelowshowshowFranckaptlytranslatedthedelightful,originalway
ofspeakingofchatterboxAuntChloe.Thetranslationisshorter,butastypicalfor
AuntChloe.
ST: Mosedone,Mas;rGeorge,browningbeautifulareallovelybrown.Ah!Let
mealonefordat!MissisletSallytrytomakesomecaketotherday,jesttolarn
her,shesaid.Oh,goway,misses,saysI;itreallyhurtsmyfeelins,nowto
seegoodvittlesspileddatarway!Cakerisalltoonesidenoshapeatall,no
morethanmyshoegoway!(22)
TT: Jahoor,enhijzieterkolossaalbeteruitdandiekoekdiedenieuwe
keukenmeidgistereninelkaarheeftgeprutst.Diehadnietmeermodeldan
mijnuitgezakteschoen!(24)
Throughoutthetranslation,Franckshowshemastersvariousregistersandwriting
styles.Francksphrasingisinventiveandoriginal.HemanagedtotranslateBeecher
StowesuseofdialectswithacolourfulandvariedDutch.Inthismanner,Franck
avoidedeitheranartificialuseofdialectsoranuninterestinguseofDutch,that
woulddonocredittothelivelinessofthesourcetext.Whatconcernstheplotof
UTC,Franckhasremainedfaithfultotheoriginalstoryline.Fromtheafterwordof
histranslationbecomesclearFranckwantedtokeepthemodernreaderinview.For
thatreasonhechoosetohighlightthesubplotaboutGeorgeandElizaandtostress
thesuspensefulpartsofthestory.Asaresult,themiddlepartofthestory,thattakes
placeattheSt.Clarehousehold,isabridgedmostdrastically.
7.4.1.InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Race
ThoughFranckhasremainedfaithfultotheoriginalstorylineandwantedto
preservethecoreofthestory,hisreaderorientedapproachnaturallyhas
consequencesfortheinterpretationofthethemesandthetextworld.
HarrietBeecherStowesmaingoalinwritingUTCwastoprovethatblacks
wereneitherphysically,normorallyorintellectuallyinferiortowhites.Whereas
manyinherdayandagedeniedblackswerefullyhumanandexperiencedthesame
emotionsaswhites,BeecherStowedrewaportraitofintelligentandhumanblack
characters.Shewasawarethatifshecouldconvinceherreadersofthehumanityand
equalityoftheblackrace,theywouldnolongerbeabletodefendslaveryintermsof
inequalityoftheraces.Still,eventhoughBeecherStowedefendedtheviewthatthe
raceswereequalandthusentitledtoequalrights,shedidassigncertain
characteristicstoeitherblackorwhite.InUTCshedescribedinseveralpassagesthe
85
supposedtraitsoftheblackandwhiterace.Amongstothers,shedepictsblacksas
naturallypatient,timidandunenterprising(90)andashavingafashionforglitter
andglamour(152).TheAngloSaxons,ontheotherhand,aredescribedasthe
colderandmorecorrectrace(152).However,sinceHarrietBeecherStowesdayand
age,opinionsabouttheraceshavechangeddrastically.Whereasinthemiddleof
thenineteenthcentury()thetendencytoexplainthecharacterofpeoplesonthe
basisofracewasextremelywidespread(Gossett,164),thistendencyisconsidered
discriminatingincontemporarysociety.InOctober2007NobleprizewinnerJames
Watsonclaimedthatthereisnofirmreasontoanticipatethattheintellectual
capacitiesofpeoplesgeographicallyseparatedintheirevolutionshouldproveto
haveevolvedidentically.Ourwantingtoreserveequalpowersofreasonassome
universalheritageofhumanitywillnotbeenoughtomakeitso.Becauseofhis
statementthatblackscouldbelessintelligentthanwhites,hebecameembroiledin
anextraordinaryrowandprovokedoutrage(Nugent,TimesOnline).The
reactionsonWatsonsstatementsaptlyshowitisamoderntabootoassigncertain
traitstotheraces,and,morespecifically,tosuggestthatoneraceissuperiorto
anotherinsomerespects.However,thisisexactlywhatthenarratorinUTCopenly
does,becausecertaintraitsarefreelyassignedtotheraces.Consequently,thisaspect
ofUTCisastumblingblocktomodernreaders.Interestingly,Franckomittedall
passagesaboutthesupposedtraitsoftheblackraceandaccordinglyremoved
possiblestumblingblocksfromthetranslation.Francksintentionintranslatingand
retellingclassicsistomakethemaccessibletomodernreaders,whilepreservingthe
coreofthestory.AccordingtoFranck,UTCisstillrelevanttomodernreaders,
becauseitenablesthemtorealisewhatslaverywaslike.UTCblijfthtboekdatde
hedendaagselezerkanlatenaanvoelenwathetsysteemvandeslavernijinwezen
betekende(254).InFrancksopinionthisisthetimelesscoreofthestory:toletthe
readerrealisewhatthesystemofslaverywaslike.Thus,Franckprimarilydescribes
therelevanceofUTCinitsmoderncontext.Inordertomakethenovelacceptableto
modernreaders,hehaschangedthevoiceofthenarratorbyremovingalltheoretical
passagesaboutthesupposedtraitsoftheraces.Franckhasadjustedthetranslationto
thegeneralopinionthatallraceshavethesamepotentialtodevelopthemselves,but
simplyhavetobegiventheopportunity.Inotherwords,inordertomaintainand
preservetherelevanceofthebook,Franckhasadaptedhistranslationtomodern
valuesandopinionsabouttheraces.However,becausethenarratorsvoiceis
changedbyomittingthetheoreticalpassages,thetranslationnolongergivesan
accountofthecontemporaryopinionsaboutthetraitsoftheraces.
Inthetargettext,FranckhasomittedthecharacterofTopsy,atraumatised
slavegirl,whoactsinanunrestrainedwaythatisbothtragicandcomic.Beecher
StowehasbeencriticisedbecauseofherstereotypicaldescriptionofTopsyasablack
whojustfollowsherprimitiveinstincts.WithTopsy,BeecherStoweunknowingly
createdtheimageofthepickaninny,thatwouldlaterbeusedtodescribeAfrican
Americanchildreninadiscriminatingway(BAUTC,30).Franckdescribeshis
omittingthecharacterofTopsy,ascuttingoutaweinigterzakedoendezijlijntje
86
(251).However,indoingso,Franckhasagainleftoutanelementofthebookthatis
consideredracistbymanyofitsmodernreaders.
ThefigureofUncleTomhasbeencriticisedwidelyforhisexceptionalmeek
andforgivingattitude.Inthe1992playIAintYoUncle:TheNewJackRevisionist
UncleTomsCabin,RobertAlexanderpresentsUncleTomasamanwithanimage
problem(Otter,15).ThenameUncleTomhasevenbecomeatermofabuseto
scoldcowardicepeople.Franckwasawareofthiscritiqueandadmittedinhisafter
wordhehumanisedUncleTombymakinghimlessresigned.Inthesourcetext
UncleTomischaracterisedbyhisunwaveringfaithandhisrefusaltodoubtthe
goodnessofGodbecauseofthecircumstances.HeevenrefuteshiswifeChloeand
youngMr.ShelbynottobeangryandvengefulwhenTomissold.Chloe!Now,if
yeloveme,yewonttalkso,whenperhapsitsthelasttimewelleverhave
together!(89).Inthetargettext,EdFranckhasomittedtheserefutes,inorderto
makeUncleTomreactmorehumanandnotasuncommonlyresignedasinthe
sourcetext.Besides,Franckpaysmuchattentiontothesubplottomakesurethe
blackraceisnotjustrepresentedbythemeek,andsomewhatotherworldlyfigureof
UncleTom,butalsobythefieryandintelligentGeorgeandElizaHarris.
Inshort,Francksreaderorientedtranslationstrategydoeshaveconsequences
forthethematicinterpretation.Acloseanalysisofthetextandthethemeraceshows
thatFranckhasomittedorchangedexactlythoseaspectsofthesourcetext,whyit
wasdescribedasdiscriminatory.Inordertomaintainandpreservetherelevanceof
thebook,Franckhasadaptedhistranslationtomodernvaluesandopinionsabout
theracesandcarefullyavoidedthebookwouldmakearacistimpression.Asaresult,
however,thevoiceofthenineteenthcenturynarratorisomitted,andthebookno
longergivesanaccuratehistoricalaccountofcontemporaryopinionsabouttheraces.
7.4.2.InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Religion
Inthenineteenthcenturyareligiousrevival,thesocalledSecondGreat
Awakening,influencedAmericansociety.Preachersstressedindividualfaith,that
influencedallaspectsofdailylife,andignoredclassandrace.Reformersstartedto
regardslaveryastheultimatesin(Norton,277).Likeinsociety,religionplayedan
importantroleinUTC.HarrietBeecherStoweturnsChristianloveasaweapon
againstviolentslavery.Besides,ChristianityinspiresUncleTomandotherslavesto
persevereandabolitioniststofighttheircause.EvarepresentsChristianityatitsbest.
However,intranslationsforchildrenreferencestoreligionareregularlyomitted,
mostprobablybecausereligionisnolongerpartofthedailylifeofmostchildren
(vanCoillie,30,2005).IntheafterwordFranckdescribeshisfirstresponsetothe
religiousaspectofUTC:
Bijdeeerstelezingschrokiknogalvandezwarechristelijkesauswaarmee
hetheleboekisovergoten.VerwijzingennaardeBijbel,dialogenmeteen
christelijkopvoedendtoontje,passageswaarinBeecherStowezichmeerals
87
eenpredikantdanalseenauteurgedraagt,eenpaaronwaarschijnlijkedele
karakters(TomenEva)Hetwasevenslikken(251).
Still,Franckrealisedthatinthenineteenthcenturyslaverywasdefendedinreligious
termsandcouldthereforebebestattackedwithargumentsbasedonChristianity.
VoorHarrietBeecherStowedaarentegenwasdeBijbelseboodschapnethet
belangrijkstewapentegenhetsysteem(252).Nevertheless,Franckobjectedagainst
thestrongreligiouscharacterofthenovelandlessenedthethematicimportanceof
religion.Hedescribeshisownstrategyasdegodsdienstigeovervloedwatinte
dijken(252).
Ananalysisofthetextshows,Franckremovedmanyofthereferencestoreligion.
Theexamplebelowisrepresentativeofhisstrategy.AuntChloesrepeated
exclamationLordisomittedinthetargettext.Moreover,TomsanswertoChloes
lamentinthesourcetextwascharacterisedbyhistrustandfaithinGod,whereasin
thetargettextthiselementisomitted.
ST: Sposewemustberesigned;but,OLord!HowkenI?IfIknowdanything
wharyousgoin,orhowtheydsarveyou!Mississaysshelltryanddeemye,
inayearortwo;butLor!Nobodynevercomesupthatgoesdownthar!They
killsm!Ivehearnemtellhowdeyworksemupondemarplantations.()
ImintheLordshands,saidTom;nothincangonofurderthanHeletsit;
andtharsonethingIcanthankHimfor.Itsmethatssoldandgoingdown,
andnotyounurthechilen.Hereyouresafe;whatcomeswillcomeonlyon
me;andtheLord,HellhelpmeIknowHewill(88).
TT: Ikkanermaarnietinberusten,zeize.Ikweetwaarjenaartoewordt
gebracht.Opdieplantagesinhetzuidenstervenzealsvliegen!Mevrouwwil
jelaterterugkopen,maarikzegje,wienaarhetzuidengaat,komtnooitmeer
terug.()Wemogenblijzijndatjijofdekinderennietverkochtzijn,zeihij
(88,89).
Inthetargettext,bothEvaandTomareassignedtypologicalcharacteristics,in
thattheyresembleJesusloveforotherpeopleeventheirenemies.Gossettstates
StoweapparentlymeanstotaketheidealoftheperfectChristian(161)inher
descriptionofUncleTom.However,inFrancksopinion,TomsandEvassaintly
charactersareratherunrealistic.HethereforedecidedeendeelvanTomsenEvas
heiligelaagwegteschrapen(252).Consequently,however,thecharactersare
typifiedinadifferentwayfromthesourcetext.
Inthesourcetext,EvaisapersonificationofChristianvirtues.Shehasanangelic
characterandevenexpressesthewishtodieforotherpeopleifshecouldsavethem
inthatmanner:IcanunderstandwhyJesuswantedtodieforus.(...)IvefeltthatI
wouldbegladtodie,ifmydyingcouldstopallthismisery.Iwoulddieforthem,Tom
ifIcould(255).HerlifeischaracterisedbyherloveofGodandofotherpeopleand
despitebeingterriblysad,herdeathbedisinherentlyhopeful:IbelieveinHim,and
88
inafewdaysIshallseeHim(270).However,inthetargettextallbuttworeferences
toEvasfaithareomitted.Once,thenarratorstatesEvaisanangeltoUncleTom:
VoorTomwasEvangelineSt.Clare()eenvandeengelenuithetNieuwe
Testament(123).Still,thissentencefunctionsasacomparisonanddoesnotreveal
anythingaboutEvaspersonalfaithinJesus.Inanotherinstance,TomremarksEva
lovedtoreadthebiblicalstoryabouttheresurrectionofLazarus(176).Thesetwo
examplesaretheonlyinstancesinthetargettextwhereadescriptionofEvaanda
referencetoChristianityarelinked.Unlikeinthesourcetext,Evaneverpersonally
witnessesofherfaith.Asaresult,inthetargettextEvastopsbeingtheangelic,
believingcharactershewasinthesourcetext.Besides,FranckavoidsdescribingEva
asanunearthlyfairy,butdepictsherasanordinary,recognisablegirl.Whereasthe
narratordescribesherinecstatictermsastheperfectionofchildishbeautywith
anaerialgrace,suchasonemightdreamofforsomemythicandallegoricalbeing
(136),Franckdescribesherinamatteroffactmanner:Hoewelzeereenbeetje
ziekelijk,jahaastdoorschijnenduitzag,waszeeenvandebeweeglijkste
opdondertjesaanboord,nieuwsgierigengoedlachs(123).Asaresult,Evabecomes
moregirlishinthetargettext.
FranckstilldescribesUncleTomasabelievingcharacter.However,hemade
Tomlessresigned.TomnolongerexpresseshisinfallibletrustinGodinall
circumstances.Besides,Tomisnolongerassignedtypologicalcharacteristicsinthe
targettext.InthesourcetextTomexplicitlyresemblesJesusinhisdeath.When
LegreeisabouttomurderUncleTom,UncleTomtellshimhewoulddieforhimif
thatcouldsaveLegreessoul.Masr,ifyouwassick,orintrouble,ordying,andI
couldsaveye,Idgiveyemyheartsblood;and,iftakingeverydropofbloodinthis
pooroldbodywouldsaveyourprecioussoul,Idgiveemfreely,astheLordgave
hisforme(382).TomswordsinfuriateLegree,becauseherealiseshewillnever
reallybeabletobreakUncleTomswill.BeecherStowemakesclearthatthereason
TomenduresishisfaithinGod.Legreecannotacceptheloosesthepsychological
battlewiththisslaveandkillshim.Thepassagecitedaboveisthekeypassageofthe
novelwhatconcernsthethemereligion,butisleftoutinthetargettext.Franckdid
notleaveoutUncleTomsfaithinthetranslation,butlessenedtheinfluenceofToms
faith.ThisconsequentlychangesTomscharacterisationandthemotifsforhis
behaviour.FranckfeltthecharacterofUncleTomwastoosaintlyandpiousto
appealtomodernreaders.Therefore,hesternlycutinreligiouspassages,but
neverthelesstookcaretomakeclearUncleTomwasmotivatedbyhisfaith:
Tomkwamtotdeontdekkingdatindehelebijbelalleenhetlijdensverhaal
vanJezushemnogenigetroostkonbieden.Steedsopnieuwlashijhet,vol
bewonderingvoordiewonderlijkefiguurdietegenalleseniedereeninbleef
volhouden,bleefgeloveninzijnzendingeninzichzelf,hoeuitzichtloosalles
ookleek.EnlangzaammaarzekerputteTomerkrachtuit,eenkrachtdieop
eengeheimzinnigemanierbleefgroeien,tothijopeenmorgenopstonden
89
zichherborenvoelde.VanafdiedagzagendeslaveneenandereTom.Hijleek
onaantastbaarvoorallekwellingen(214).
Inshort,Francksafterwordmakesclearhewasawareofthethematic
importanceofreligion.Herealizedhecouldnotomitthethemeentirelywithout
impairingthethematicinterpretationofthetextworld.Nevertheless,heomittedthe
majorityofthepassagesaboutreligionandrestrictedhimselftoaminimumof
referencestoreligion.Franckhadtostrikeadifficultbalancebetweenbeingfaithful
tothesourcetextandwritinganappealingtexttomoderntargetreaders.Herealized
thattheChristianaspectsofthesourcetextcouldbealienatingtomodernreaders.
BeecherStowesprimarygoalwiththesourcetextwastoconvincepeopleofthe
injusticeofslavery,butshealsofocussedonthenonviolentforceofreligionin
bringingaboutjustice.Inthetargettexthowever,religionisnolongerathemeof
greatinterest.ThoughFranckmakesclearUncleTomisstrengthenedbyhisfaithin
God,faithnolongercharacteriseshisentirebeing.
7.4.3.InterpretationofThemes&TextWorld:Gender&Society
Sinceitspublicationin1852,UTChasalsobeenreadfromafeminist
perspective.DorisY.KadishdescribesUTCasamajorworkthathasbeenidentified
withwomenandthathascontinuedtointerestandinspirewomencriticsand
readers(51).ThoughBeecherStowedidnotintendtowriteafeministnovel,she
certainlypleadedthecausewomen.InUTCsheangrilydescribedthesexual
harassmentslavewomensufferedfrom,paintedsomeportraitsofpowerfulwomen,
andshowedhowwomencouldinfluencethesocialandpoliticaltidebyexerting
theirmoralinfluence,eventhoughtheyweredeniedtherighttovote.Forthat
reasons,genderwasanimportantthemeofUTC.However,theaspectsofUTCthat
wereprogressivearounditspublication,arenolongerrecognisedassuch,because
thenovelisdated.Asaresult,BeecherStowespleaforwomenisdatedandno
longerofcurrentthematicrelevanceinthetargettext.Still,likeBeecherStowe,
Franckopenlyanddisapprovinglydescribesthesexualabuseofslavewomenand
depictsthemoralstrengthofwomen.Besides,inhisafterwordFranckexplainsto
thereaderthatthenovelpleadedthecauseofwomenandstatesthatwomenand
slaveswerealikeinsomerespectsinthenineteenthcentury.Therefore,though
BeecherStowespleaforwomenisdatedandnolongerofcurrentrelevanceinthe
targettext,FranckaccuratelydescribestherelevanceofthenoveltoBeecherStowes
contemporarieswhatconcernsgender.
WhenFranckstranslationwaspublishedtheactivatingmessageofUTCto
abolishslavery,naturallywasnolongerrelevant.Still,Franckstressesthehistorical
relevanceofthenovel:UTCishtboekdatdehedendaagselezerkanlaten
aanvoelenwathetsysteemvandeslavernijinwezenbetekende(254).Topointout
thehistoricalrelevanceofabookaboutslaverytochildren,areferencetothepastof
theirowncountrywithregardtoslaverywouldcertainlynothaveoutofplace.
90
However,areferencetoslaveryintheDutchandBelgiancoloniesislacking.Inits
presentform,theafterwordwronglygivestheimpressionthatslaverywasjustan
Americanmatter.
7.5ChildImage&Childrensliterature
Thechildimageoftranslatorsandtheiropinionsaboutchildrensliterature
influencetheirtranslationstoagreatextent.Fordecadeswritersfeltchildrenought
tobeprotectedfromtheharshoutsideworldandromanticisedlifeinchildrens
booksanddirectedtheirstoriesatnaveandinnocentchildren(Oittinen,41,42,
2000).Taboosubjectsassex,violence,injusticeandphysicalitywereavoidedin
childrensbooks.Thisattitudechangedradicallyinthesixtiesandseventies.Social
criticismenteredchildrensbooksandchildrenwereopenlyconfrontedwithformer
taboosubjects(vanCoillie,274,1999).Francksdefinitionofhisownbooksand
protagonistsmakesclearhewritesforunderstandingandexperiencedchildren
(Oittinen,41,42):
Mijnjeugdromansgaanoverjongerendiedoorhetlevengekneusdworden,
maaruiteindelijktochhunrugrechttrekkenenzeggen:Iklaatmeverdomme
doorhetlevennietonderspitten.Dwarse,nadenkende,gevoelige,intelligente
jongerendiemoeizaamhuneigenwegzoeken.(bron:websiteNPJ)
Franckopposesdeceivingchildrenwithdescriptionofanunrealistic,dreamlike
world,becausechildrenareexposedtotheharshersidesoflifetoo.Hewantsto
describelifeasitis.Iklaatgewoonzienhoehetsomsgaatinhetleven.Inhetbeste
gevalschenkenmijnboeken()eenbeetjetroost().Mijnboekenzijnmeerdan
zomaareenverhaal.Zegaanoverhetleven.Enoverjoumisschien(idem).
GteKlingbergclaimsthatinadaptationsforchildrenoftenanythingconsidered
unsuitableisdeleted,inordertopreventthechildrenfromobtainingknowledgeof
theworldaroundthem(Oittinen,91,2000).Obviously,Francksopinionsabout
childrensliteraturearetheoppositeoftheattitudeKlingbergdescribes.Thisalso
becomesclearfromhistranslationstrategies.
Unlikeotheradaptors,Franckhasnotomittedthereferencestophysicality
andsexuality.Thepassagebelowseemstobethelitmustestofadaptorswhat
concernstheirtranslationnormsaboutphysicality.Mosttranslatorsavoidtomention
Prueisnolongerabletobreastfeedherbaby,eventhoughthisentailstheycannot
mentionthetruecauseofthebabysdeath.Franckremainedclosetothesourcetext.
ST: Itwasthepeartestlittlething!andmississheseemedtothinkaheapont,at
first;itnevercrieditwaslikelyandfat.Butmissistucksick,andItended
her;andItuckthefever,andmymilkallleftme,andthechilditpinedtoskin
andbone,andmissiswouldntbuymilkforit.Shewouldntheartome,when
ItelledherIhadntmilk.ShesaidsheknowedIcouldfeeditonwhatother
91
folkseat;andthechildkinderpinedandcried,andcried,andcried,dayand
night,andgotallgonetoskinandbones,andmissisgotsotaginit,andshe
saidtwantnothinbutcrossness(201202).
TT: Toenikhierbijeennieuwemeesterkwam,kreegiknogeenkindenikmocht
hethouden,zeihij.Maaropeendagwerdikziekenmijnborstengavengeen
melkmeer.Opeenvloekeneenzuchtwerdmijnkindzomageralseen
rietstengel.Veloverbeen.Mijnmeesterwildegeenmelkvoorhemkopen.
Mijnzoontjemoestmaaretenwatdepotschafte,zeihij.Maardatlukteniet
(155).
InUTC,HarrietBeecherStowedescribedthesexualharassmentfemaleslaveswere
oftenexposedto.Franckhasnotomittedorsoftenedanyreferencestointerracial
sexuality,butkeptthemallintact.Obviously,Franckvaluestellingthetruthhighly,
evenifthatentailsexposingchildrentoaharshandviolentworld.
ST: Weremark()thatGeorgewas,byhisfathersside,ofwhitedescent.His
motherwasoneofthoseunfortunatesofherrace,markedoutbypersonal
beautytobetheslaveofthepassionsofherpossessor,andthemotherof
childrenwhomayneverknowafather(102).
TT: Zalikueenseenleukverhaalvertellen,meneerWilson?Mijnvaderwaseen
vanuwdeftigeblankeherenuitKentuckydiezijnhandennietkonafhouden
vanzijnzwarteslavinnen(101).
ST: Sir,Ihavestoodatthedoorandheardherwhipped()andshewas
whipped,sir,forwantingtoliveadecentChristianlife,suchasyourlawsgive
noslavegirlarighttolive(105).
TT: Maarnoggeenmaandlaterhebikmoetentoekijkenhoezewerdgegeseld.
Gewoonomdatzemeesterzijnzinnietwoulatendoen,alsubegrijptwatik
bedoel(102).
Insomeinstances,Franckismoreexplicitthanthesourcetextaboutthesexualabuse
ofslaves.ThesourcetextimpliesEmmelineisboughtbyLegreetoreplacehisformer
mistressCassy,butleavesthereaderindoubtwhetherheactuallyabusesherornot.
Inthatrespect,thetargettextisclearer,astheexamplesbelowshow.
ST: ImeantocallEm.Shehatesmethemonkey!IdontcareIllmakeher
come!(346).
TT: IkgatroostzoekenbijEmmeline,alhaatzeme,dieboskat.Maardatkanmet
nietschelen.Alshetmoet,dwingikhaar(208).
Legreesthreateningwordsleavelittletotheimaginationofthereaders.Besides,
FranckletsEmmelinemoreexplicitlycommentontheabuse.
92
ST: Oh,Cassy!Dotellme,couldntwegetawayfromthisplace?Idontcare
whereintotheswampamongthesnakes,anywhere!Couldntweget
somewhereawayfromhere?(348)
TT: OCassy,dedingendiehijmetmedoet,ikhoudhetnietmeeruit,snikte
Emmeline.Kunnenwenietsamenvluchten?Hetgeeftnietwaarheen.Ikzit
noglieverindemoerassentussenslangenopboomschorstekauwendanhier
teblijven.Kunnenweechtnergensnaartoe?(209)
Francksmainstrategywastoabridgethesourcetext,butananalysisofthe
referencestointerracialsexualityshowsthathekeptthemallintact.Astheexample
aboveshows,Franckisoftenmoreexplicitinhistranslationthanthesourcetextwas.
Inmanyinstancescursingandrudelanguageareconsideredunsuitablein
childrensbooks.Inthesourcetext,theworsecharactersgettheruderlanguagethey
use.Itisshockingtoreadaboutthecrueltyoftheslaveholdersandtheircarelessand
indifferentattitudetowardstheirslaves.Theatmosphereinthelastpartofthebook
isparticularlyoppressing,notintheleastbecauseoftheviolentwayinwhichLegree
addressestheslaves.Franckdidnothesitatetotranslatetherudelanguage.
ST: Sambo!Quimbo!Givethisdogsuchabreakininashewontgetoverina
month!(331)
TT: Neemdieschurftigevromehondmeeengeefhemeenpakranselwaarhij
overeenmaandnoglastvanheeft(200).
ST: DidntIpaydowntwelvehundreddollars,cash,forallthereisinsideyerold
cussedblackshell?(331)
TT: Ikhebverdommetwaalfhonderddollarbetaaldvooralleswaterinjouw
vervloektezwartevelzit!(200).
FranckdescribedUTCasatextdiejebijdestrotgreep(247).Becausehedidnot
softentheviolentandrudetoneofthesourcetext,histranslationhasthesameeffect.
Theexamplesaboveareshocking,becausetheyshowhowthesystemofslaveryand
slaveholdersdeniedslavestheirhumanity.TheslaveUncleTomisstrippedofhis
identityanddignityasahumanbeingandtreatedasthisdogandjustaold
cussedblackshell.Thetranslationoftheexamplesabovegivereasontosurmise
Franckregularlyoverdoestherudenessofthesourcetextinordertoreacha
powerfuleffect.
ST: Legreedreamed.()Thenitseemedtohimhewasontheedgeofafrightful
abyss,()andCassycamebehindhim,laughingandpushedhim.()Legree
awoke.()Ivehadahellofanight!hesaidtoCassy(350).
TT: Ikbennetwakkergeschrokken.()Nachtmerriegehad.()Hijspuugde
opdevloerenvloekte.Entoenstondikopderandvaneenravijneniemand
duwdemeinderug.Godverdomme,wateenhelsenacht!(211)
93
Obviously,Franckdidnotconsidercursingandrudelanguagetabooinchildrens
books.Ontheopposite,heregularlyevenoverdoestherudenessofthesourcetext.
LikeFranckdidnotomitorsoftentherudelanguageandpassagesreferringto
sexuality,heneitheravoideddescriptionsofviolence,asalreadycouldhavebeen
deducedfromvariousexamplesquotedabove.Thequotebelowprovidesagood
exampleofFranckstranslationsofviolentpassages.Henotjustavoidstosoftenor
omitthescaringelementsofLegreesspeech,butevenaddssomequitegrueling
details.
ST: DoyouknowIvemadeupmymindtokillyou?()Ihave()donejust
thatthing,Tom,unlessyoutellmewhatyouknowabouttheseyergals!()
Harke,Tomyethink,causeIveletyouoffbefore,IdontmeanwhatIsay;
but,thistimeIvemadeupmymind,andcountedthecost.Youvealwaysstood
itoutaginmenowIllconqueryouorkillyou!oneortother.Illcount
everydropofbloodthereisinyou,andtakeem,onebyone,tillyegiveup!
(382)
TT: Ikgajevermoorden,nikker!sistehij.Jijbentdeaanstokervandevlucht.Jij
weetwaardiemeidenzichverschuilen.Ikvermoordjealsjehetmijniet
vertelt.Ikscheurjezwartehuidaanflardenensleurhetuitje!Tomgafgeen
antwoord.Hoorjemeniet?()Doejebekopen!Jijdenktdatikhetniet
meen,h?Omdatikjedevorigekeerheblatengaan.Maarnudrijfikdoor,
hondsvot.Ikzalelkedruppelbloedvanjeaftappen,eenvooreen,totje
toegeeft.Begrepen?(326,327)
Inshort,Franckseemsnottohaveconsideredadaptingthetranslationto
traditionaleducationalvalues.Likethesourcetext,Franckstranslationisshocking
toread.LikeBeecherStowe,Franckdoesnotsparethereaders.Whereasinmany
childrensbookschildrenareprotectedfromtheharshoutsideworld,Franck
confrontsthemwithaviolentstory.Indeed,whereotheradaptorsomittedaspectsof
UTCoutofeducationalmotives,Franckkeepsthemintactorevenstressesthem.As
aresult,whereonewouldexpectamitigationofthesourcetext,Franckregularly
overdoesthesourcetextinhisuseofrudelanguage,referencestosexualabuseand
descriptionsofviolence.PaulaConnollywordedthedilemmaoftranslatorsasto
erasetheviolenceofsucheventswouldbetomitigatetheatrocityitself,yet
includingviolencecouldeasilyalienateorterrifyveryyoungchildren(107).Franck
obviouslychoosetotellthepainfultruth,ratherthantomitigatehistory.
94
Conclusion
InherfiercepleadforabolitionHarrietBeecherStoweaddressedthewhole
AmericannationinUTC.Thoughshecalledherselfdisdainfullyalittlebitofa
woman(Gossett,239),shedidnotshyawayfromarisingconsternationinher
detaileddescriptionsofthehorrorsofslavery.Thus,UTCprimaryhadanactivating
function.UTCbecameaclassic:untiltodaymillionsofcopiesweresoldanditwas
translatedintensoflanguages.Becauseslaveryhaslongsincebeenabolished,the
initialfunctionofthenovelhaschangedfromactivatingintoprovidingasocial
historicalaccount.Thetargetaudiencehaschangedtoo,sincethenovelisnowadays
regardedasachildrensclassic.Astranslationsmirrorcontemporaryopinionsabout
society,literatureandthetargetaudience,thischangecanalsobeperceivedinthe
translationsinDutch.InthisMAthesisItriedtoanswermyresearchquestion,
focussingonthefunction,thematicinterpretationandtargetaudienceofthe
translation:HowdothedifferenttranslationsandadaptationsofUTCinDutchreflectthe
contemporaryopinionsaboutthechild,childrensliterature,andsociety?
Inchapter1,IpaidattentiontotheinterestingviewsofZohar,Touryand
Lefevere,whoallstatedthattranslatedtextsareproductsofacertaincultureand
shouldbestudiedinthatculturalcontext,ratherthanontheirlinguisticmeritsand
characteristicsalone.Itooktheiradviceintoaccount,andexploredthesourceofthe
UTC,asanunderstandingofthesourcecultureandthesourceauthorarevitalforan
adequateunderstandingofatext.
ForthesecondchapterIdelvedintoseveralcataloguesinordertosetupa
translationhistoryofUTCinDutch.Thetranslationhistoryshowedthatfrom1853to
2008,nolessthan49differenteditionsofUTChaveappearedinDutch.42Editions
(86%)werenotintegraltranslationsbutadaptationsofthesourcetextthat
specificallyaimedatatargetaudienceofchildren.Thefirsteditionsheldamonopoly
ontranslationsofUTCinDutchforyears,butfrom1910onmanypublisherstriedto
gettheirshareoftheclassicandthereappearedatleasttwoneweditionsofUTC
everydecade.Mostpublishersdidnotsucceedintheirattempttoprofitfrom
publishingtheclassic,asonly29%oftheeditionswasreprinted.
Inchapter3,IbrieflyinvestigatedwhetherUTCspopularitymightcohereto
itsrelevancetotheDutchpolicies,whichkeptslaveryintacttillthe1880s.Indeed,
thepublicationofUTCseemedtohavegivenanimpulsetotheweakabolitionist
movementofTheNetherlands.Booksandbrochuresappearedthatweremodelled
onUTCandthatmadethereadersawarethatslaveryintheDutchcolonieswasas
gruellingandunsustainableasslaveryinAmerica.LikeinAmerica,UTCbrought
slaveryhome.AnindepthanalysisoftherelationbetweenthepublicationofUTC
andtheabolitionofslaveryinTheNetherlandsdidnotbelongtothescopeofthis
MAthesis.Nevertheless,furtherresearchintotheinfluenceofUTContheDutch
95
socialpoliticalsituationinthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcenturymightprove
veryinteresting.
Because86%oftheadaptationsofUTCinDutchaimedatyoungreaders,Idid
somefurtherresearchintowritingandtranslatingforchildreninchapter4.Thislaid
bareafieldoftension:tomaintainthehistoricalfaithfulnessofthesourcetextmight
conflictwithconservativeandacceptednormsaboutchildrensliterature.The
dilemmaofthetranslatorwaswordedaptlybyPaulaT.Connolly:...toerasethe
violenceofsucheventswouldbetomitigatetheatrocityitself,yetincludingviolence
couldeasilyalienateorterrifyveryyoungchildren.(...)Inshort,howdoesonetell
thetruth?(107).
Onthebasisofthetheoreticaloutlinesketchedinthefirstfourchapters,I
startedtoanalysethreeadaptationsofUTCthatwereeachrepresentativeofacertain
period.Inchapter5,IexaminedA.G.Bruinses1854adaptationofUTC:Eenkijkjein
dehutvanoomTom.ItappearedthatBruinsessolvedthedilemmastatedbyConnolly
byshiftingthethematicemphasisfromslaverytoreligion.Besides,thelivelytext
worldhasbecomeratherformalandfailstomakeapowerfulimpact.Bruinses
avoidedtorefertothecurrentrelevanceofUTCtoslaveryintheDutchcolonies.
Thus,theatrocityofslaveryismitigatedbyeducationalmotivesinBruinses
adaptation.Bruinsessconservativeopinionsaboutchildrensliteratureinfluenced
hertranslation.Shepreservedtheinnocenceofhertargetaudienceandprotectedit
fromaharshworld.
Inchapter6IanalysedP.deZeeuwstranslationstrategiesinDehutvanoom
Tom.WhereasinthesourcetextHarrietBeecherStowefiercelyprotestedagainst
slaveryandwantedtoprovebyintellectualargumentsandtheemotional
involvementofherreadersthatblackswerenotinferiortowhites,DeZeeuw
focussedonwritingasuspensefulstoryaboutsympatheticblackcharacters.The
themeracereceiveslessattention,becauseDeZeeuwomitteddescriptivepassages
anddialoguesaboutslavery.Asaresult,thehistoricalrelevanceofthenovelhaslost
strengthtosuspense.DeZeeuwstranslationstrategyislessprotectivethan
Bruinsess,ashekeepsmoreviolentpassagesintact.Still,theharshnessofthesource
textissoftenedandDeZeeuwadaptsthetexttoeducationalvalues.
EdFranckpublishedhisadaptationofUTC,DehutvanoomTom,in2003.
UnlikeDeZeeuwandBruinses,heseemednottohaveconsideredadaptingthe
translationtoeducationalvalues.Franckdidnotsparethereaders.Whereasinmany
childrensbookschildrenareprotectedfromtheharshoutsideworld,Franck
confrontedthemwithaviolentstory.Indeed,whereothertranslatorsomitted
passagesaboutoutofeducationalmotives,Franckkeptthemintactorevenstressed
them.Franckregularlyoverdoesthesourcetextinhisuseofrudelanguage,
referencestosexualabuseanddescriptionsofviolence.PaulaConnollywordedthe
dilemmaoftranslatorsastoerasetheviolenceofsucheventswouldbetomitigate
theatrocityitself,yetincludingviolencecouldeasilyalienateorterrifyveryyoung
children(107).Franckobviouslychoosetotellthepainfultruth,ratherthanto
mitigatehistory.Francksopinionsaboutchildrensliteratureareprogressive:he
96
refusedtoomitorsoftentheaspectsofthesourcetextthatweretraditionally
adapted.Franckschildimagewasthatofanexperiencedandunderstandingchild.
Franckhadareaderorientedapproach,andcarefullyadaptedtimelyaspectsofthe
sourcetext.
Inshort,eachoftheanalysedadaptationsrevealsadifferentchildimageofthe
translatorandreflectsdifferentcontemporaryopinionsaboutchildrensliterature
andsociety.Bystudyingseveraltranslationsthatappearedoveraperiodof150
years,cultural,historicalandliterarychangesbecomeapparent.Bruinsessand
Franckstranslationsareopposites.Becausetheyappearedwithanintervalof150
years,theyareindicativeofthesechanges.WhereasBruinsesprotectsherreaders,
Franckconfrontsthem,whereasBruinseswritesforinnocentchildren,Franck
addressesanexperiencedaudience.WhileBruinsessoftensthesourcetext,Franck
sharpensit.Thesedevelopmentsalsorelatetothealteredfunctionofthenovel,that
changedfromactivatingtoprovidingasocialhistoricalaccount.
97
Bibliography
PrimarySources
BeecherStowe,Harriet,UncleTomsCabin,Kent:WordsworthEditionsLimited:2002,
1stpublishedin1852.
BeecherStowe,Harriet,EenkijkjeindehutvanoomTom,Sneek:vanDruten&Bleeker,
1853.TranslatedbyA.G.Bruinses
BeecherStowe,Harriet,DehutvanoomTom,DenHaag:G.B.vanGoorzonens
uitgeversmaatschappijN.V.,1936,6thedition.TranslatedbyP.deZeeuw
BeecherStowe,Harriet,DehutvanoomTom,Antwerpen:HetLaatste
Nieuws/Paperview,2003.TranslatedbyEdFranck
SecundarySources
Baker,Monaed.,RoutledgeEncyclopediaoftranslationstudies,London:Routledge,
1998,p.58
Brinkmanscumulatievecatalogusvanboeken,diegedurende...inNederlandenVlaanderenzijn
uitgegevenofherdrukt,metaanvullingenovervoorafgaandejareninnalfabetgerangschikt
volgensauteur,titelenonderwerp,Leiden:Sijthoff
Buijnsters,P.J,BuijnstersSmets,L.,LustenLeering:GeschiedenisvanhetNederlandse
Kinderboekindenegentiendeeeuw,Zwolle:WaandersUitgevers,2001.
Coillie,J.van,Leesbeestenenboekenfeesten:Hoewerken(met)kinderenjeugdboeken?,
Leuven:Davidsfonds/Infodok,1999,vijfdedruk.
Coillie,J.van(red.),ChildrensLiteratureinTranslation,ChallengesandStategies,
Manchester:St.JeromePublishing,2006
Coillie,J.van,EdFranck,in:LexiconvandeJeugdliteratuur,61,februari2003
Coillie,Janvan,Vertalenvoorkinderen:hoeanders?LiteratuurzonderLeeftijd,2005,
nr.67,p.1639.
Connolly,PaulaT.,NarrativeTensions:TellingSlavery,ShowingViolence,The
PresenceofthePastinChildrensliterature,Westport:Praeger,chapter12,2003
98
Constandse,A.L.,Multatulialshervormer,uitgegevendoorInstituutdeVooysvoor
NederlandseTaalenLetterkundeaandeRijksuniversiteitUtrecht,1937.
Desmidt,Isabelle,Eengolfvanreacties;complexiteitincommunicatiesituatiesen
begrippenapparaatbijkinderliteratuurinvertaling,Filter,tijdschriftvoorvertalen,
2005,nr.4,p.8087.
Ghesquire,Rita,Hoelangduurtklassiek?,Literatuurzonderleeftijd,2003,nr.62,p.
6985.
Gijswijst,M.,Slavenhandelenslavernijalssociaalenpolitiekprobleem;Deabolitiesdoor
Engeland,FrankrijkenNederland,(Geschreven,gedruktenuitgegevenophet
HistorischSeminariumvandeUVA,1976)Werkschrift8,p.131
Gomes,Patricia,D.overnatuurgenotenenonwilligehonden;beeldvormingals
instrumentvooruitbuitingenonderdrukkinginSuriname18421862,Amsterdam:
Aksant,2003.
Gossett,ThomasF.,UncleTomsCabinandAmericanCulture,Dallas:Southern
MethodistUniversityPress,1985
Hovell,W.R.van,SlavenenvrijenonderdeNederlandschewet,Zaltbommel:Joh.
NomanenZoon,1855.
On:<http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/hoev004slav01_01/colofon.htm>
Janse,C.S.L.,Fietsalsmiddeltegendrankmisbruik,ReformatorischDagblad,21May
2008,p.19.
Janse,M.,Deafschaffers;publiekeopinie,organisatieenpolitiekinNederland18401880,
Wereldbibliotheek,2007
Kadish,DorisY.,MassardierKenney,Franoise,TranslatingSlavery:genderandracein
Frenchwomenswriting,Ohio:KentstateUniversityPress,1994,p.1164.
Koltin,Elmar,Welkeenhartroerendschouwspel:boekillustratiesinNederlandse
vertalingenvanDenegerhutvanoomTomenaanverwanteteksten18541893,
Leidschrift:historischtijdschrift,2002,vol.17,nr.3(december),p.6788.
Koster,Cees,Laatdeboekentotonskomen;vertaalstromeninhettitelaanbod
kinderenjeugdboeken19311995,Filter,tijdschriftvoorvertalen,2005,nr.4,p.3040
99
Koster,Cees,Vertalenvooralleleeftijden?;cultureledynamieken
selectiemechanismenbijuitgeverijenvankinderenjeugdboeken,Filter,tijdschrift
voorvertalen,2005,nr.4,p.6578.
Koster,Cees,EnFamille,depositievanvertalingindeNederlandstaligekinderen
jeugdliteratuur,LiteratuurzonderLeeftijd,2005,nr.67,p.5769.
Kranendonk,W.B.,Geenpreekjes,weleenboodschap,ReformatorischDagblad,22
052003.
On:<http://www.refdag.nl/artikel/59425/Geen+preekjes+wel+een+boodschap.html>
Kuitenbrouwer,M.,TheDutchCaseofAntislavery,in:Fiftyyearslater;antislavery,
capitalismandmodernityintheDutchorbit,ed.GertOostindie,Leiden:KITLVPress,
1995,p.6788.
Kuitenbrouwer,M.,Devertraagdeafschaffing:Debesluitvormingoverdeafschaffingvan
deslavernijindeNederlandsWestindischekolonin,18511863.(Geschreven,gedrukten
uitgegevenophetHistorischSeminariumvandeUVA,1976)Werkschrift8,p.3280.
KmmerlingMeibauer,Bettina,KlassikerderKinderundJugendliteratur:ein
internationalesLexikon,Stuttgart&Weimar:Metzler,1999,p.10301034
Linders,J.etal.,HetABCvandejeugdliteratuur,Groningen:Nijhoff,1995,p.166,167
Munday,Jeremy,IntroducingTranslationStudies,theoriesandapplications,London&
NewYork:Routledge,2006.
Moeyaert,Bart,Geenantwoord;hetverschiltussenliteraturen,Leesgoed,1997,nr.
6,p.235237.
Naaijkens,T.,Vanfissen,vossenenvertaling,LiteratuurzonderLeeftijd,2005,nr.67,
p.1115.
Naaijkens,T.,et.al,DenkenoverVertalen,DenkenoverVertalen,Tekstboek
Vertaalwetenschap,Vantilt,2004.
Norton,MaryBeth,ed.APeopleandaNation,Boston&NewYork:HoughtonMifflin
Company,2005
Oittinen,Rita,TranslatingforChildren,NewYork:Garland,2000
Oittinen,Riitta,TranslatingCulture;Childrensliteratureintranslation,Literatuur
zonderLeeftijd,2005,nr.67,p.4556.
100
Perridon,Wilmy,Hetvertalenvankinderboeken;naardevoordeurspringenen
anderelichteenzwareontsporingen,Leesgoed,1997,nr.1,p.3336.
Shavit,Zohar,PoeticsofChildrensLiterature,AthensandLondon:TheUniversityof
GeorgiaPress,1986.
On:<http://www.tau.ac.il/~zshavit/pocl/index.html>
Stipriaan,Alexvan,SurinameandtheAbolitionofSlavery,in:Fiftyyearslater;
antislavery,capitalismandmodernityintheDutchorbit,ed.GertOostindie,Leiden:
KITLVPress,1995,p.117141.
Stowe,CharlesEdward,TheLifeofHarrietBeecherStowe,Boston:Houghton,Mifflin
andCompany,1890
On:<http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/childrn/cbhp.html>
Welie,M.J.van,ChallengingTaboos;UncleTomsCabinAdaptedforChildren,BAthesis,
2007
Websites
<http://www.hertog.nl/Auteurs/L.%20VOGEL>
<http://slavernij.eloweb.nl/plantage/pc/html/sur.html>
<http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/childrn/gallpeepf.html>
<http://www.cubra.nl/gerarddecroon/devotieprentjes/gerarddecroondevotieprentjes7
3.htm>
101

(How) Does One Tell The Truth

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(How) Does One Tell The Truth

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(How)DoesOneTellTheTruth?

Denegerhut I H.J.vanderMunnik 1925 J.M.Bredes

DenegerhutvanoomTom AC PietBroos 1943 Boekdrukke

DenegerhutvanoomTom AC L.Kievits 1945 LaConcorde,

DenegerhutvanoomTom AC W.Brugmans 1948 DeSleutel,

DehutvanoomTom AC H.vanHoorn 1950

DehutvanoomTom AC E.Verbraeken 1956 Standaard

DehutvanoomTom AC D.Hauwertjr. 1964 D.A.P.

DehutvanoomTom AC AntheBarends 1987 Thieme

DehutvanoomTom I ? 1999 Wolters

Anda mungkin juga menyukai