Shakespeare in Republican Turkey (1991)

SHAKESPEARE IN REPUBLICAN THE TURKİSH REPUBLİC The question of Shakespeare's cultural dominance in western societies has been addressed in several books and collections of essays, most recently by Gary Taylor and Michael D. Bristol. Garry Taylor, Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present (London, The Hogarth Press, 1990); Michael D. Bristol, Shakespeare’s America: America's Shakespeare (London and New York, Routledge, 1990). Other critics have demonstrated that Shakespeare can be used to further the cause of British imperialism; through his plays it is possible to teach a body of knowledge that emasculates the right cultures of hitherto independent nations. See Malcolm Evans, Signifying Nothing: Truth's True Contents in Shakespeare's Texts, 2nd ed. (Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989). Some cultures evidently refused to accept this dominance. The Turkish preoccupation with Shakespeare has been so extensive that one critic was moved to describe him in 1966 as the country's leading dramatist, whose popularity was greater than in any other non-English speaking country outside the mainstream of western culture. See Talât Saït Halman, "Shakespeare in The Turkish Republic," in Oscar James Campbell (ed.), A Shakespeare Encyclopaedia (London, Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1966), p.900. Yet Shakespeare's supremacy might be regarded as something of an anomaly, particularly when the Turkish literary/theatrical traditions differ from those of the western world. This paper will attempt to justify this anomaly by means of an analysis of how Shakespeare has become pre-eminent in modern Turkish culture. His plays are required reading in high schools and universities; and translations are readily available in inexpensive editions. Shakespeare also forms the subject for a wide range of research and critical writing, which is likely to expand in the future, following the projected opening of a Shakespeare Research Institute at Hacettepe University, Ankara, in late 1990. (2011 note) The Institute unfortunately failed to take flight and closed five years later. Interest in his writing is by no means confined to the academy: to date 22 of his plays have been revived by the state and municipal theatres for a wide and varied public. Even comic-strip versions of his plays have been produced, and given away as free gifts by a popular daily newspaper. Both Romeo and Juliet and Antony and Cleopatra were included in a series of "World Classics" (other texts included Madame Bovary and, given away free to readers of Günaydın in early 1986. My analysis will concentrate on the formation of cultural policies in the Turkish Republic through the practices of teaching, translating and producing Shakespeare. These policies originate in Kemal Atatürk's attempts to establish a modern Turkish culture following the creation of the Republic in 1923. This paper thus explicitly conceives of culture not as a 'reflection' or 'expression' of a society, but rather as a vital organ in the creation of society itself. Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield emphasise the importance of this concept: Culture does not (cannot) transcend the material forces and relations of production. Culture is not simply a reflection of the economic and political system, but nor can it be independent of it [...] texts [are] [...] inseparable from the conditions of their pro duction and reception in history; and as involved necessarily in the making of cultural meanings which are always, finally, political meanings. Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield, "Foreword: Cultural Materialism," in Graham Holderness (ed.), The Shakespeare Myth (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1988), p.ix. It is necessary to investigate the various manifestations of power in Turkish society; and what the exercise of power means in terms of the creation of a westernised culture. The theatre, for instance, has always been subject to state control, while the universities have sought to implement Atatürk's policies by establishing Shakespeare courses taught by British lecturers. If certain ways of thinking about the world are promoted, then it follows that others must be impeded - particularly when Shakespeare is introduced into a non-English speaking, politically independent culture. The result, inevitably, has been an endless conflict of cultural meaning, centring around whether the Turkish Republic should imitate the examples of the west, or develop its own national culture. In undertaking this project, I must proceed on the understanding that I am implicated in and defined by the culture I propose to investigate. I am currently employed by two Turkish universities to teach Shakespeare; as a part-time member of the Hacettepe University English Department, I was present at the opening of the Shakespeare Research Institute. This paper will be divided into four sections. The first concentrates on why Shakespeare was represented as a genius, transcending the boundaries of language and culture, whose work had to be appropriated by the emergent Turkish culture in order to prove the success of Atatürk's reforms. The second section focuses on what might be described as the counter-movement, originating in the theatre and the university, that called for a more creative engagement with Shakespeare's plays. By concentrating on a recent Shakespeare revival - Basil Coleman's King Lear of 1981 - the third section will demonstrate how the theatre has become the site for the Republic's cultural search for identity. The final section will suggest that it is this search which helps to explain why the new critical approaches to Shakespeare - structuralist, post-structuralist, feminist, New Historicist, cultural materialist - which have evolved in the west over the last two decades, have had little impact. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's cultural policy was directed towards political as well as artistic ends. Through the creation of a new Turkish culture, which would be devoid of all Ottoman elements (these he considered an impediment to the Turkish Republic's social and economic progress), he endeavoured to change the ways in which people thought and felt, so that they would support the Republic and its aims. This could be best accomplished through the arts: "If a nation is rich in art and people skilled in the arts, it can achieve a full life of its own. A nation that cannot do this is like a man who is lame or lacks a limb, who is an invalid or crippled.” Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, "On the Function of Art", quoted in Metin And, "Atatürk and the Arts, with special reference to Music and Theatre", in Jacob M. Landau (ed.), Atatürk and the Modernisation in The Turkish Republic (Colorado, Westview Press, Inc., 1984), p.217. To help foster good relations between the Republic and the outside world, Atatürk wanted this culture to be based on western models; but these were not to be slavishly imitated. The Turkish Republic could sustain its independence only by choosing the right models and reinterpreting them in the light of native traditions. Atatürk strongly believed that the theatre should function as an instrument of cultural education; and thereby further the interests of the state. He personally supervised the content of all new plays, banning some and permitting others to be performed only after cuts had been made, and encouraged directors to revive western classics wherever possible. Shakespeare had first been introduced to Turkish audiences by foreign companies during the mid-nineteenth century; since then, his plays had been regularly revived by the major companies, most of which were run by Armenians. A version of Othello entitled Revenge of the Moor had proved particularly popular. For a survey of Shakespeare productions in The Turkish Republic from the mid-nineteenth century to 1923, see Metin And, "Shakespeare in The Turkish Republic", Theatre Research, VI, no. 2 (1964), pp.75/84. Shakespeare's popularity increased after the creation of the Republic; by 1938 (the year of Atatürk's death) eight plays had been staged in İstanbul, including Hamlet (twice) and Twelfth Night. Within ten years, a further ten plays had been produced in İstanbul and Ankara, including The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, and lesser-known works such as Timon of Athens. A comprehensive list of Shakespeare revivals from 1923 until 1962 can be found in Arslan Kaynardağ, "Shakespeare'de Türkiye" (Shakespeare in The Turkish Republic) in Hamlet, Macbeth (İstanbul, İstanbul Şehir Tiyatroları, 1962), p.15. Unless specified, the English translations of works originally published in Turkish are by my friend and colleague [and later wife] Meltem Kıran. In an essay "He and I" [O ve Ben] published in 1948, Muhsin Ertuğrul - the director of the İstanbul Municipal Theatre - attempted to explain why he turned to Shakespeare so frequently: Whenever I come to make a choice in this life, or am undecided; whenever I hesitate in giving a decision, or cannot trust myself, whenever I'm stuck at home or at work [...] I remember Shakespeare [....] and say to myself [....] "What kind of a power is this? This great man of the theatre who died 300 years ago created such immortal characters (who are still very much alive today) and foresaw their destinies. This person who created them, gave life to them, and made them live on stage is only one human being [....] If SHAKESPEARE is a human being, what am I? If I am a human being, who is SHAKESPEARE? Muhsin Ertuğrul, "O ve Ben" (He and I), Küçük Tiyatro, Year 2, Issue 5 (27th December 1948), repr. in İnsan ve Tiyatro Uzerine Görduklerim (İstanbul, Yanki Yayınları, 1975), p.87. Ertuğrul believes that Shakespeare is the supreme individual, the great artist who can encourage his readers or spectators towards a deeper understanding of themselves. Although he died three hundred years ago, his characters appear important to modern Turkish playgoers. Shakespeare is represented as Ertugrul's contemporary: his characters may observe archaic or parochial standards of behaviour, but their basic motives are readily understood. Ertugrul justifies this by suggesting that Shakespeare stands in direct relationship to Man in general, rather than to any specific men or women in history, or to specific historical or cultural contexts. This essay represents Ertuğrul's attempt to reinterpret Shakespeare in the light of Atatürk's cultural policies. Whilst the performance of his plays fulfils the necessary function of developing relationships with the European dramatic tradition - enabling the emergent Turkish culture to take itself more seriously - it is clear that Ertuğrul refuses to accept Shakespeare as "the Bard of Stratford-upon-Avon," who wrote plays for English audiences. To do so might encourage the belief amongst Ertuğrul's readers that The Turkish Republic had sacrificed its independence by subjecting itself to western cultural influences. Ertuğrul himself emphasised three years earlier that "we want to do Shakespeare better than they do him at Stratford." Muhsin Ertuğrul, quoted in A.R. Humphreys, "Shakespeare's Plays in The Turkish Republic", Asiatic Review 41 (1945), p.201. The Turkish people would not be bound by the obligations of mancipatio inherent in the Shakespearean tradition, whereby one culture binds itself to another by accepting what Michael D. Bristol terms "the massive gift we call a tradition." Bristol, Shakespeare's America, America's Shakespeare, p.48. The significance of mancipatio was particularly important to the Turkish Republic in the post- Atatürk era, as it continued the task of liberating the language from the Ottoman tradition. The movement for the simplification of the Turkish language had begun in the mid-nineteenth century as a reaction against the heavily Persianised and Arabicised Ottoman prose. It received new impetus through Atatürk's programme of 'purification', which included the adoption of the Roman alphabet in place of the Arabic script in 1928; and the gradual replacement of thousands of words of Persian and Arabic origin with words borrowed from Turkic dialects, or technical terms derived from ancient and modern western languages. The Ministry of Education instituted a scheme to translate 'world classics', including the plays of Shakespeare. They created a Translation Office in 1940, with the participation of leading writers, critics and lecturers, who were responsible for producing unabridged translations from original sources. Every published translation was prefaced with an article written by Hasan-Ali Yücel, the Minister of Education, which emphasised the importance of this "state project of translation [...] in Turkish cultural life." Hasan-Ali Yücel, preface to Othello, trans. Orhan Burian, Dünya Edebiyatından Tercümeler (World Classics in Translation Series) (Ankara, Maarif Matbaası, 1943), p.v. Translating Shakespeare - who once again represents the best of world literature rather than English culture - put the language to the test, to see whether he could be rendered accessible to the Turkish reading public. By publishing such translations, the Translation Office indicated that the test had been passed: the Turkish language (and by implication, the emergent Turkish culture) had been liberated from the Ottoman tradition and acquired its own identity. The Translation Office established a set of guidelines for the preparation and publication of their work. Their main objective was to provide easily understandable versions of Shakespeare's plays, which kept close to the original text. This would be accomplished by translating a readily available English edition (normally the Arden Shakespeare) entirely in prose, as there was no equivalent of blank verse in the Turkish literary system. Any shifts in meaning - for example, when obscure puns or allusions had to be redefined in the interests of clarity - were kept to a minimum. Such guidelines bore a strong resemblance to the theories of decorum in the western rhetorical tradition, which, as Eric Cheyfitz reminds us, are determined by questions of power and authority: "The question of decorum [...] is inevitably answered by locating the most powerful, the most authoritative, figures in a particular society and by listening to how these figures speak, by studying what they write." Eric Cheyfitz, The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan (New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1991), p.95.. The Arden Shakespeare series collected in one place most of what a translator needed to know about the plays - complete texts with modernised spelling, explanatory footnotes at the bottom of every page, plus a selection of readings of previous texts, from the earliest quartos in the sixteenth century to the most recent editions. If the printed text proved unsatisfactory, then the translator could incorporate alternative readings recorded in the footnotes. Una Ellis-Fermor, the general editor of the New Arden Shakespeare series, paid tribute in 1952 to "those scholars" who had designed the original editions: "the lines [they] laid down [...] have proved their worth throughout the past half-century." Una Ellis-Fermor, "General Editor's Preface", in King Lear, ed. Kenneth Muir, New Arden edition (London, Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1952), p.viii. Their expertise guaranteed and suffused the Shakespearean text; and it was clear from the success of the Arden Shakespeare series - which provided inexpensive yet scholarly editions of individual plays - that readers respected this. By relying on these editions, the members of the Translation Office placed themselves in a contradictory position. They included Shakespeare's plays in the scheme to translate and publish a series of "world classics": the translations, when they appeared, were derived from texts prepared by British academics. In seeking to free themselves from the Ottoman tradition, the Translation Office were bound by the obligations of mancipatio to another tradition - that of British textual scholarship. Some British cademics were more directly involved in The Turkish Republic's cultural reformation, as they were invited by the Ministry of Education (in collaboration with the British Council) to teach English Literature - particularly Shakespeare - in English at Turkish universities. A.R. Humphreys, a lecturer at the University of Liverpool, was seconded to the Council for work at Istanbul University in 1944/5. From the Ministry's viewpoint, Humphreys' presence would help the Turkish Republic to develop its relationships with the outside world. Students could be introduced to the great authors of world literature, and (more importantly) their standards of spoken and written English would significantly improve. But it could be argued that, by collaborating with an institution funded by the British government to import British Shakespeare specialists, the Ministry had run the risk of subjecting The Turkish Republic to undue cultural influence from foreign forces. Gary Taylor observes that "Some considerable proportion of Shakespeare's current international reputation is the fruit not of his genius but of the virility of British imperialism, which propagated the language on every continent." Taylor, Reinventing Shakespeare, p.379. In a pamphlet outlining their activities during the Second World War, the British Council congratulated themselves on their "efforts to satisfy the Turks" desire for information about Britain" - which included providing textbooks and periodicals in English, as well as translations of Shakespeare. "Shakespeare's plays in Turkish" in The World of the British Council 5: Great Britain and the East (London, The British Council, 1943), p.39. The Turkish government's education and translation policies at this time contained essentially contradictory aims. While seeking to establish an identity for its own language, it was willingly allowing British scholars to teach Shakespeare in English. This strategy was important in forging links between The Turkish Republic and the rest of Europe; but it simultaneously hampered the growth and development of a national language and culture. Some Turkish academics believed that their nation had gone too far in the direction of westernisation: the theatre historian Özdemir Nutku remarked in 1986 that Atatürk's successors had 'misunderstood' his policies, which "led to some excesses of imitation [...] and the neglecting of vital characteristics of Turkish culture." Özdemir Nutku, "A Panorama of the Turkish Theatre under the leadership of Atatürk", in Gunsel Renda and C. Max Kortepeter (eds.), The Transformation of Turkish Culture: The Atatürk Legacy (Princeton, The Kingston Press, Inc., 1986), p.166. Inevitably there had to be a counter-reaction, which emphasised the importance of maintaining The Turkish Republic's independence; and this in turn prompted a revaluation of Shakespeare's status in Turkish culture. II Following the Revolution of 1960, which resulted in a military take-over, the reconstituted Turkish government introduced new cultural policies, designed to encourage Turkish writers. Restrictions on the publication and performance of new plays were eased: dramatic now had the freedom to write about contemporary issues, secure in the knowledge that their work would be accepted by the major theatres. Out of seventeen plays produced in Ankara in the 1960/1 season, over half were by Turks. Both Ankara and İstanbul Universities created theatre departments, for the purpose of training new dramatists in the disciplines of criticism and playwriting (the Istanbul department closed in 1962, but reopened two years later). These departments employed theatre professionals to teach the courses; in return, they provided the theatres with new writers. Such policies would contribute to the development of a national culture, and improve The Turkish Republic's status abroad. Muhsin Ertuğrul had emphasised the importance of creating drama institutes in 1956, "in order to develop playwrights, so that we do not lag behind Europe, America, and now Asia". Muhsin Ertuğrul, quoted in Nutku, "A Panorama of the Turkish Theatre," Ibid, p172. Nonetheless, the theatres and universities continued to imitate western models. Most Shakespeare productions strove for historical accuracy in their sets and custumes: The Taming of the Shrew (İstanbul, 1960/1) and Hamlet (Ankara, 1962) were both staged in the costumes of Elizabethan England. The authority of British Shakespeare scholarship remained unchallenged: Ankara University published Selections from Shakespeare (1960) in English, for the benefit of their English Literature students, in which all quotations were taken from the Arden editions of the plays. Selections from Shakespeare: For First Year Students of the English Department of the Faculty of Letters, University of] Ankara (Ankara, Doğuş Ltd., Şirketi Matbaasi, 1960). Shakespeare was undeniably important in Turkish culture, but he had to be integrated into the nationalist context. The translator Sabahattin Eyüboğlu claimed in a note to his 1966 version of Hamlet that Shakespeare had created a universal "language of his own", in which "every word assumes an extra dimension of meaning, beyond the meaning as expressed in English". While reading French and Turkish translations of the play, he had realised that "in every translation, Shakespeare becomes someone else"; consequently every translator had to "draw [Shakespeare] into his own world". Sabahattin Eyüboğlu, "Çevirenin Sözü" [Translator's note], in Hamlet (İstanbul, Remzi Kitabevi, 1965), pp.167/8. Shakespeare has a universal message, but that message differs from nation to nation. It is not sufficient to reproduce this playwright faithfully in a seventeenth century context. His value to The Turkish Republic lies in his adaptation to the modern Turkish context. On this view Shakespeare is not perceived as an historical phenomenon; but rather incorporates a potent combination of elements identified by Alan Sinfield as "Shakespeare-plus- relevance." Alan Sinfield, "Royal Shakespeare", in Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield (eds.), Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1985), p.159. The central notion of Shakespeare's authority is used to justify the argument that his plays need to be reconstituted so that they become relevant to modern Turkish audiences. In a recent book, Wim Neetens has shown how Matthew Arnold's essay "Culture and Anarchy", (which was written in the aftermath of the 1867 Reform riots) outlined a view of British culture, with poetry and criticism at its centre, which would "be the site from which unifying human values, transcending local and historical conflict, could [...] sweep together antagonistic factions in the common pursuit of "Sweetness and Light". This proved especially attractive to the capitalist ruling class, who wanted to "establish itself in a truly begemonic position, as a class whose cultural and intellectual prestige was able to unify a nation and pacify a conflict-ridden society." Wim Neetens, Writing and Democracy: Literature, Politics and Culture in Transition (Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), pp.10, 7/8. Eyüboğlu advocated a similar view in the Turkish Republic nearly a century later. Whilst believing that Shakespeare could be appreciated by anyone, regardless of language or culture, he simultaneously represented him as a dramatist for the Turks; and by doing so forged a connection between Shakespeare’s moral and aesthetic authority and the ideological demands of their own culture. This would help to overcome any possible objections to Shakespeare's presence in The Turkish Republic, at a time when the theatres and universities were endeavouring to dissociate themselves from western literary/theatrical traditions. Such views were also embraced by governments trying to develop the Turkish Republic's national culture. Eyuboglu's translations were reprinted several times, purchased by university libraries, and used in Shakespeare productions in İstanbul and Ankara. Eyüboğlu's work also contributed to the development of new Turkish writing - particularly "a dramatic discourse that was fundamentally poetic, bordering on what might best be described as free verse which could occasionally be rhythmic, and developed by such playwrights as Güngör Dilmen and Turan Olfazoğlu in their dramatic treatment of myth and history". Saliha Paker, "Hamlet in The Turkish Republic", New Comparisons: A Journal of Comparative and Literary Studies, 2, (Autumn 1986), pp.100/1. To translate, study or perform Shakespeare was not only an aesthetic pleasure; it had become a moral and social duty in the service of the Turkish nation. III This duty appeared to have been forgotten by the mid-1970s. Shakespeare continued to be studied in university courses, but his popularity in the theatre declined significantly. The Ankara State Theatre staged The Comedy of Errors and The Taming of the Shrew in 1972/3; then there was a six-year gap until the next revival – Othello. The İstanbul Municipal Theatre's production of Hamlet (1981) was the city's first Shakespeare revival in eleven years. New translations were commissioned, but not used: in 1976, Engin Uzmen - a professor of English at Hacettepe University, Ankara - translated Richard III for the State Theatre, but to date it remains unpublished and unperformed. Translating Shakespeare had always been one of the means by which the Turkish Government could 'prove' the success of its cultural policies. By ignoring the new translations, the State Theatre cast serious doubts on the validity of these policies. During the same period, the popularity of English as a language in The Turkish Republic increased rapidly, with the opening of more private and state-sponsored language schools, staffed by foreign teachers as well as Turks. Robert College, an American-run university using English as a medium of instruction, was taken over by the Turkish Government and renamed Boğaziçi (Bosphorous) University in 1973. Such developments caused great concern: a knowledge of English was certainly important, to develop The Turkish Republic's cultural and commercial relations with the outside world, but it could not be promoted at the expense of the native language. Güray Çağlar König, a professor of linguistics at Hacettepe University, voiced the anxieties of many scholars: "The neglect of the native tongue would harm cultural consciousness seriously and subject us to the control of foreign forces". "The Place of English in The Turkish Republic", in Deniz Bozer (ed.), The Birth and Growth of a Department: Department of English Language and Literature 1965 - 25th Anniversary (Hacettepe University, Beytepe, Ankara, 1990), p.162. New drama was still produced at the major theatres, but failed to find favour with audiences: the most successful plays at the State Theatre during this period were by modern dramatists from the west - Peter Shaffer's Equus, Somerset Maugham's The Constant Wife, and Neil Simon's The Good Docto. Shakespeare had once served as an innovative model for new drama; by neglecting him, the quality of new drama had obviously suffered. When one critic remarked in 1981 that it was "the State Theatre's duty to revive him [Shakespeare], to bring to the Turkish public examples of the world's greatest drama", “Kral Lear,” Güneş, 31st March 1981, p.42. @ <+#><-#> > the implication was clear: the State Theatre was not only doing him a disservice, but they were undermining confidence in the national culture. Graham Holderness has recently explained how "the Shakespeare myth" - the belief that Shakespeare is a great dramatist who appeals to all nations in all periods of history - functions in contemporary cultures "as an ideological framework for containing consensus and for sustaining myths of unity, integration and harmony in the cultural superstructures of a divided and fractured society". Graham Holderness, introduction to The Shakespeare Myth, p.xiii. It can be used by a dominant group to maintain their hegemony through a combination of cultural leadership, and the active or inactive consent of those classes and groups which are subordinate to it. But there was no dominant group in the Turkish Republic: ever since Atatürk's death, there had been a struggle for hegemony - that is, for moral, cultural, intellectual and thereby political power - between the army and opposing factions with the government. Each military take-over - in 1960, 1971 and 1980 - produced significant changes in cultural policy, with the formation of new governments. In the 1960s, it appeared that such changes would contribute to the development of the national culture; the policies of the 1970s represented a step backwards, with too much importance being placed on western influences. With no dominant group to reinforce the myth of his greatness, Shakespeare became a marginal figure in Turkish culture. Cüneyt Gökçer, The Turkish Republic's leading classical actor and the director of the State Theatre, treated the 1981 King Lear as a prestige production, marking his return to the stage after a three-year absence. At the British Council's suggestion, he invited Basil Coleman to direct; this was the first time an Englishman had been responsible for a Shakespeare revival in the State Theatre's history. Coleman appeared to be the ideal person to help re-establish Shakespeare's cultural authority. In a career lasting forty years, he had not only acted in Lear (playing Burgundy to John Gielgud's Lear at the Old Vic in 1940), but he had directed As You Like It (1978) - the inaugural production in the BBC TV/Time Life Shakespeare series. Staged in Elizabethan costume in a realistic setting (Glamis Castle), this production emphasised the purpose of the entire project - to create a library of traditional productions which would be accessible to audiences throughout the world. Coleman's Lear was equally traditional in the sense that it strove for historical accuracy. The set consisted of a wooden platform, flanked by panels which could be moved to suggest various changes of scene. Three huge wooden blocks, painted to look like stone, formed a 'hedge' at the back of the stage. This invested King Lear with a prehistoric atmosphere, while permitting the action to unfold with very few interruptions. Roger Andrews based his constume-designs on the kilt, whose origins could be traced back to the Anglo-Saxon period, when Scottish plaid first began to be used in making clothes. The actors used a full text, based on a translation by İrfan Şahinbaş which had first appeared in 1959. In the intervening two decades, the Turkish language had undergone tremendous changes; consequently Şahinbaş rewrote the text (in collaboration with Coleman and Gökçer) in poetic prose. His new version certainly appealed to one reviewer, who praised his use of "simple, clear Turkish [...] [which] celebrates the name of Shakespeare through deceptively simple means." Ayşegül Yüksel, "A play stripped of ornaments that shines like gold," Cumhuriyet Magazine, 31st March 1981, p.6. Such comments served to emphasise the importance of this revival in restoring confidence in the national culture. Audrey Uzmen, a British-born costume designer who worked as Coleman's translator, perceived its educational value; once again it "made audiences aware of Shakespeare's greatness". Shakespeare had been reclaimed as a dramatist for the Turks: one reviewer considered Gokcer's portrayal of Lear "a great display of acting", while Coleman was praised for the "flawless simplicity" of his production, which "should appeal to all kinds of spectators, especially the new generation of playgoers." Audrey Uzmen, interview with the author, Ankara, 21st May 1990; 'Kral Lear', p.42; Yüksel, "A play stripped of ornaments...", p.6. On the other hand, the very presence of Coleman as director could have provoked speculation that The Turkish Republic was relying too much on British cultural influences. Coleman himself was described by Turkish reviewers as "an artist from Shakespeare's mother country" who "knows what he is doing; he has been involved with Shakespeare for a long time." 'Kral Lear', p.42: "A play stripped of ornaments...", p.6. Such contradictions were nothing new (they had emerged in the late 1940s, when British scholars began to teach literature in Turkish universities); but then it appeared that they could be overcome by developing the native literary/theatrical tradition. By the 1980s, however, these contradictions seemed unavoidable, as the State Theatre attempted to compensate for the cultural deprivation of the previous decade. The Shakespeare industry in the Turkish Republic has radically expanded in recent years. Coleman's Lear was filmed for television in 1982, and broadcast a year later; it has subsequently been repeated three times, most recently in May 1991. The State Theatre has regularly staged Shakespeare's plays, including The Merchant of Venice (1982), Julius Caesar (1984/6), Macbeth (1987) and As You Like It (1990). The İstanbul Municipal Theatre's revival of Antony and Cleopatra (1986) toured throughout the Turkish Republic. Several new translations have been published - for example Othello (1985), Twelfth Night (1988), and All's Well that Ends Well, which appeared for the first time in Turkish in the same year. Academic activity flourished amongst Turkish Shakespeareans: Minâ Urgan's Shakespeare ve Hamlet (Shakespeare and Hamlet), 1982) contains detailed analyses of all 37 plays - the first time anyone had attempted such a task. In 1989, Bilkent University in Ankara organised a conference on "Shakespeare and his time" in association with the British Council; the majority of the speakers came from Turkish universities. Turkish academic Shakespearean culture remains comparatively unaffected by the most recent developments in western criticism - particularly the shift of attention from the plays themselves to the history of their institutional reproduction (which forms the basis of this essay). Books such as Dollimore and Sinfield's Political Shakespeare, or Michael D. Bristol's Shakespeare's America: America's Shakespeare may be available in university libraries, but they are seldom consulted. The belief in Shakespeare's universality continues to hold considerable sway in Turkish literary criticism. In 1986, King Lear was described by one critic as "tragedy of such universality and humanity that it cannot be destroyed by time"; another suggested four years later that "Shakespeare's words embody human life." Özdemir Nutku, "Kral Lear Űzerine" (Notes to King Lear), in King Lear (İstanbul, Remzi Kitabevi, 1986), p.11; Bülent R. Bozkurt, introduction to Shakespeare'den Alıntılar (Selections from Shakespeare) (Ankara, Metaksan A.S., 1990), p.3. On the other hand, Shakespeare's words can still "change according to the person who reads them, and the context in which they are used". Consequently he becomes a dramatist for the Turks: "It makes you shudder - they <[>Shakespeare's words] seem so relevant to your own life - they make you reconsider what's right, what's wrong, what's meaningful or meaningless, what is living or dead". Bozkurt, Selections from Shakespeare, p.3 This view of Shakespeare is very similar to that put forward by Eyüboğlu in the 1960s, when the Turkish Republic sought to increase confidence in the national culture by dissociating itself from western influences. It is this spirit of nationalism which perhaps helps to explain why the post- structuralist, the New Historicist, the cultural materialist, or any other approaches to Shakespeare which have evolved in Britain or America in recent years have had little effect upon Turkish academic life. They may appear interesting, but to teach them as part of a university course may expose students to an undue degree of western influence. There could be a risk, however, that such approaches might be introduced by foreign scholars employed by Turkish universities. But this can be tolerated, particularly when these scholars are simultaneously helping to strengthen the national culture. Ever since the early 1940s, western scholars have played an integral part in The Turkish Republic's cultural development, not only introducing students to the great authors of world literature, but helping to improve their standards of written and spoken English. Many students have subsequently studied abroad in England and America. Studying Shakespeare therefore becomes one of the principal means by which the Turkish Republic sustains its relationships with the outside world. The presence of Shakespeare in Turkish culture has only lasted just over a century; he has an undeniable importance, as the Republic strives to fulfil Atatürk's vision of a national culture. Some British critics might believe that "to take him [Shakespeare] seriously at all is to accept an alien agenda", as Bernard Bergonzi states; their Turkish counterparts consider that he embodies "an entire set of values and level of existence". Bernard Bergonzi, Exploding English: Criticism, Theory, Culture (Oxford, Clarendon Paperbacks, 1991), p.176; Bozkurt, Selections from Shakespeare, p.3.