When you think of the great works of French dramatic literature (and, really, who doesn’t spend lots of time thinking about it?), the name Moliere is most likely to appear. If you are really a fan, perhaps Beaumarchais or Marivaux might pop up. The one name you might not expect to think of is Shakespeare. Yet, as history has proven, Shakespeare has been a force in many languages, not just English. Shakespeare’s works have been translated and translated, but how are they interpreted in these new tongues? When we see Moliere plays in English, numerous compromises have been made to approximate both the content and the verse of the French versions. When Shakespeare is performed in other languages, his plays undergo similar transformations.

A new literary project is devoted to examining those transformations more closely, specifically those by noted French writers. While all translations might be worthy of study, interpretations of Shakespeare by luminaries such as Dumas, pere, and Sand naturally attract greater interest. As a result, these works have been re-translated into English in an attempt to better understand how these works have been translated (and in some cases, adapted).

One might look at this endeavor and ask, “Well, what’s the point?” A translation of a translation is doubly diluted, so what will we get from it other than the fact that it will be significantly different from Shakespeare’s original? I certainly wouldn’t argue the merits of the play’s theatrical viability as the results following its multiple translations are likely to be extremely variable. Ultimately, what these translations will tell us is what aspects of Shakespeare are most important in another language. In other words, is what makes a Shakespeare play important in English the same thing that makes it important when filtered through another language and culture?

A recent review of a production of Moliere’s Tartuffe. In passing, the inevitable comparisons to Shakespeare were mentioned (though this author believes Moliere aligns better with Shakespeare’s contemporary, Ben Jonson). In a decidedly Anglo-centric tradition, Moliere is often referred to as “The French Shakespeare,” a moniker I’m sure the French must be thrilled to hear. While both are appreciated for their wit and brilliance, I’m not sure the parallel is entirely fair.

Since Shakespeare came first, the comparison inevitably positions Moliere as a follower, imitator or acolyte, which is neither fair nor accurate. On a generic level, each is often esteemed the greatest theatrical voice of his respective country. Understood, but again, the comparison inevitably makes Shakespeare the Genesis of the theatrical bible. “In the beginning, there was Will, and everyone else followed thereafter…” (How’s that for an overextended metaphor?).

Beyond this, the two aren’t really appropriate points of comparison for each other. English theatre, particularly in terms of space and production values, was much more closely tied to Spain (ironic, given their military opposition during this period). In addition, French drama and Moliere specifically bore a stronger relationship to Italian traditions.

Most importantly, French comedy was heavily influenced by the neoclassical movement, which used Ancient Greek and Roman ideas to create rules for dramatic storytelling. Shakespeare, with his convoluted plots, supernatural elements and mixed genres, was anything but structured. Both Moliere and Shakespeare made important contributions to theatre that need to be evaluated on their own terms. The direct competition into which they are frequently placed is a kind of theatrical Super Bowl where no one really wins.