Enters and Swerdlin 1
Emily Enters and Elizabeth Swerdlin
Principles of Dramaturgy
Magda Romanska
2 October 2012
Script Analysis: Tartuffe
For our script analysis, we have chosen to look at two translated versions of Tartuffe, a
play originally written in French by Molière. Our first translation is Richard Wilbur’s translation,
which is the version all Emerson Performing Arts students read in World Drama. This particular
translation was first performed in 1997 and has a traditional take on the play. Our second
translation is Edward Pogue’s translation. This is the translation that Professor Benny Sato
Ambush is currently directing for Emerson Stage. From base Internet research, 2008 appears to
be the first time that this translation was performed. The script notes that this adaptation’s
copyright is 2007.
There are several differences that set the two translations apart, the first being the
breakdown of the actual play. Wilbur’s translation is a play in five acts, which is very different
than Pogue’s translation in two acts. A play in five acts is a more traditional theatrical set up,
while two act plays are more common in today’s theater world. The world of the play is also a
major difference between the translations. Wilbur’s translation is set in tradition 1600s Paris,
France. Pogue’s translation, and really adaptation, is set in 1920’s Long Island, known as the
“Gold Coast” or North Shore. This is an affluent area of New York, which clearly plays a role in
how the show is received by an audience.
Another difference we found between the translations is the deletion of a character:
Flipote. In Wilbur’s translation, —the more traditional one—Flipote exists and is noted as
Enters and Swerdlin 2
Madam Pernelle’s maid. In Pogue’s new adaptation, Flipote is not listed as a character, or even a
character of another name. As far as we could deduce, there was no real need to get rid of the
character. Additionally, the character of “The King” who is never seen onstage, but referenced is
known as “The Governor” in Pogue’s version. The subtle change in language again places the
play in an audience accessible place. Another character title change between the two translations
is done in order to raise the stakes of the play. Instead of a police officer entering to resolve the
play, as in Wilbur’s translation, the attorney general comes to resolve the play in Pogue’s
version. This seemingly simple change affects the resolution of the play and gives the audience a
better idea of how drastic the situation turned out to be.
One of the largest differences between the translations is that Wilbur’s translation retains
the rhyme and verse, while Pogue’s is in prose. This is the difference that helped us arrive at our
ultimate conclusion that Pogue’s translation is a more superior version of the script. Modern
audiences, it can be argued, prefer theatrical pieces that fall most similarly to the life they are
currently living. While Tartuffe is a classical piece of drama, adaptations that place the action in
a setting or world that is more applicable to the audience watching are more successful in
reaching that audience. We both agree with the idea that theater is a personal experience that is
sufficiently affected by how deeply you can connect to the material and setting of a play.
To support this, we looked at Dorine’s monologue early in the play. Located in Wilbur’s
Act 1, Scene 1, Dorine discusses how Tartuffe has manipulated Orgon into being his pet and how
Tartuffe is known to do this. Her opening lines are as follows:
Yes, but her son is even worse deceived;
His folly must be seen to be believed.
In the late troubles, he played an able part
And served his king with wise and loyal heart,
But he’s quite lost his senses since he fell
Beneath Tartuffe’s infatuating spell.
Enters and Swerdlin 3
Pogue’s Act 1, Scene 1 features a monologue very similar to content, only with much
more “bathroom humor”. The open lines of his translation are:
Her son, my master, Orgon, is sadly even more gone. He was a steadfast
rock to the Governer, who depended on his advice and courage during the
late Civil Troubles. Now the rock has tumbled into a landslide of lunacy
over this Tartuffe.
When looking at the two different versions of the same words it is easy to see how one is
more relatable than another, but it is also easy to see how one creates a different affect than the
other. Wilbur’s flowery language may not necessarily highlight the power and emotion behind
the text, but it does help convey the meaning of the words, and the words themselves. Pogue’s
text is focused on what the actor brings to the words, and lends itself to the use of acting
technique in a modern setting.
What is interesting about Wilbur’s interpretation is the reference to Moses, a prominent
Biblical figure. This reference is left out of Pogue’s interpretation, possibly in order to establish a
certain report with his audience. Because Wilbur’s is a traditionalist take on the original play,
much of the religious overtones are present throughout the play.
When we were discussing which version of the play we wanted to select, there was a
little conflict, but eventually we arrived at the same conclusion. Emily, at first, thought that
Wilbur’s version, which stuck closely to the original French version, had qualities that could
make it a stronger piece overall. The rhyme, while may not be the most translatable to a modern
audience, still carries a sense of importance and depth that is lacking in some areas of the Pogue
text. However, it is hard to argue with the fact that Pogue’s text is a more modern, 21st century
friendly adaptation.
Enters and Swerdlin 4
We were able to reach a conclusion about which text to produce because we both believe
that it is important to give audiences what they are used to seeing, hearing, and experiencing in
the theater.