# Any good translations of "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" into modern English? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 17, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016 "2014-06-17T21:40:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/41 "2014-06-19T01:24:25Z")
**TonySinclair** , it may well be true that modern audiences miss a fair bit of Shakespeare’s references. But I suspect that the same is true for Shakespeare’s own contemporary audiences, and that he took that into account in writing them. Yes, much of the idiom is now out of date, but on the other hand, modern audiences are also much better educated than most Elizabethans. That’s why he has the habit of saying everything twice, so that even those who miss out when he says something in a fancy way will still catch it when he repeats it more plainly: In a way, Shakespeare himself provided annotation to his plays. ---
**Author:** ![Flywheel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Flywheel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flywheel)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/42 "2014-06-19T01:46:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > An actor can give a slight overemphasis on the first syllable of “country” Or put a [Cue Card Pause](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CueCardPause) in the middle. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/43 "2014-06-19T01:50:44Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > …Not to mention the fact that many of the plays assume a knowledge of history and mythology that very few Americans possess today… Knave, what thinkest thou to make an ass out of mineself and thineself? ---
**Author:** ![Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e47c2d/32.png) [@Hershele\_Ostropoler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hershele_Ostropoler)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/44 "2014-06-19T01:56:15Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Maybe come out of your ivory tower once in a while. There’s a whole lot of good stuff in Shakespeare, that translates very well to modern audiences, even if the language is dumbed down for us peasants. Or, go be a purist. I’ll be happy watching my DVD of _West Side Story_. or _Strange Brew_…🙂 > > (And I for one think that mentioned “country matters” pun in Hamlet is really lame. It’s not even funny or clever, just dirty. Who knew ol Bill was related to Bevis and Butthead?) The cultural changes that cause us to regard Shakespeare’s work as highbrow aren’t the fault of Shakespeare. I’m not even sure I’d say they’re the fault of academia. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/45 "2014-06-19T02:08:30Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > _Strange Brew_ My 14 year-old self never would have made the connection to _Hamlet_. I just remember Max von Sydow being awesome. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/46 "2014-06-19T02:43:43Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > The beauty of Shakespeare is in the language he used. I’m not sure what a modern English version has to offer. For those for whom Elizabethan English is a foreign dialect it offers a version that can be understood. Yes, remarkably enough not everyone is intimately familiar with archaic dialects, which is really what Shakespeare is written in. > [@robert\_columbia](#): > > The language is Modern English. No, it’s not. Or more accurately, it’s no longer a standard dialect of English. Most Americans never experience it outside of the theater or a book. Somehow no one is puzzled when a person has trouble with a contemporary dialect from another continent they have little exposure to, but somehow we’re all supposed to just magically know Elizabethan English. > [@](#): > > What you probably are having trouble with are cultural references that don’t make sense. For some people it _really is_ the dialect. > [@Chronos](#): > > Change the language, and you might as well just plagiarize from the same original sources that old Will did, and cut out the middleman. So, clearly, we should absolutely outlaw translating it into any other language ever. If those Italian or Chinese people want to know about Shakespeare they’ll just have to learn Elizabethan English, dammmit! > [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > So, do you ever read works translated from a language you can’t read? It’s the same thing. Translations make changes to the word play of the original. Are those works equally invalid? > > I guess I don’t agree that the language was THE whole point of Shakespeare. It was A point, and a very good one, but I think the stories count as well. ^ This. Studying Shakespeare’s dialect is important because it has had an impact on current English, but for a lot of people these days the foreignness of that dialect gets in the way. I stuck it out until I could understand it in the original language, but then I had mother who used to read us Chaucer in the original dialect and after that Shakespeare wasn’t nearly so hard. Basically, I had the good fortune to be exposed to multiple dialects of English, including archaic ones, quite early in life and therefore acquired comprehension with less effort than some of my peers. Not everyone gets that exposure, and if you don’t then a typical American will find Shakespeare’s dialect as baffling as Old Scots or _[insert obscure dialect of your choice]_. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > Everybody knows what “cobbler,” “naughty,” and “out” mean No, they don’t. When I was working as a cobbler I’d say about 3-4 out of 5 people I ran into around here had no clue what “cobbler” meant, either in the sense of “bakery creation” or “shoe repair”. I was gobsmacked, but there it is. I’m not counting those for whom English is a second language, these were native speakers who were clueless. Nor were these all high school drop-outs. It’s been 400 years since Shakespeare wrote his plays. Yes, that really is enough time to make it very difficult for a lot of people to understand. > [@](#): > > That said, IMO the language Shakespeare used is the main reason to read his plays, because IMO the history is inaccurate, the jokes aren’t that funny, the psychology is trite, and the romantic plots are ridiculous. By that reasoning the only reason to watch Hollywood movies or TV is for the language - same problems. > [@](#): > > if you want to read Shakespeare, then resign yourself to the fact that you’re going to have to slog through it the first time by looking up 400-year-old terms or idioms several times per page, and you might have to read it through two or three times before you can read it fluently. Except most people don’t want to do that, or don’t have the time. So they don’t read it at all. Yeah, I get that some people are in love with the dialect, but when you get down to it, it’s just another dialect and one that is becoming progressively more opaque with time. The ivory tower crowd can either tolerate it being “translated” into dialects that others find easier to understand or resign themselves to becoming more and more marginalized with each generation. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/47 "2014-06-19T02:44:10Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > Knave, what thinkest thou to make an ass out of mineself and thineself? Well played, old chap. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/48 "2014-06-19T05:46:18Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > No, it’s not. Or more accurately, it’s no longer a standard dialect of English. Most Americans never experience it outside of the theater or a book. Somehow no one is puzzled when a person has trouble with a contemporary dialect from another continent they have little exposure to, but somehow we’re all supposed to just magically know Elizabethan English. It was never a _standard_ dialect of English. Shakespeare’s vocabulary and verbal fireworks were always well above average. And no, the standard person in Elizabethan English didn’t speak in iambic pentameter. But yes, it’s just as much [Modern English](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_english) as Morte d’Arthur. This is inarguable. Here’s another link about Early Modern English and it’s relation to contemporary English and Middle English. > **[Early Modern English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English)** > > Early Modern English (sometimes abbreviated EModE or EMnE) or Early New English (ENE) is the stage of the English language from the beginning of the Tudor period to the English Interregnum and Restoration, or from the transition from Middle English, in the late 15th century, to the transition to Modern English, in the mid-to-late 17th century. > Before and after the accession of James I to the English throne in 1603, the emerging English standard began to influence the spoken and written Midd... Nobody in this thread said it would be easy to pick up Shakespeare’s poetic language. All we’re saying is that it’s not a foreign langauge, like Middle and Old English. Bottom line is, if you’re not going to make the effort to develop an appreciation for Shakespeare’s writing, then there’s no real point to getting a stripped down plot summary. Just read up on it at Wiki. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/49 "2014-06-19T05:57:56Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Do I grab the low-hanging fruit and make another obvious and unfunny joke? No, I will restrain myself and simply ask, “modern English?” What about it is hard to understand? Or did they give up on its pointless blank verse and put it into paragraphs? Which doesn’t hurt Shakespeare, either, IMHO. Oh, go for the cheap joke, I say… But, seriously, here’s a bit of what they did to Milton… Original: “1. Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit 2.Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast 3.Brought Death into the World, and all our woe, 4.With loss of Eden, till one greater Man 5.Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat, 6.Sing Heav’nly Muse, that on the secret top 7.Of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire.” Simplified: “Tell me about man’s first sin, when he tasted the forbidden fruit and caused all our troubles, until Jesus came and saved us. Inspire me with this knowledge. You are the heavenly spirit who inspired Moses in his teachings.” Emetic, innit? ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/50 "2014-06-19T05:58:54Z")
> [@bienville](#): > > … The book that the characters used was [Charles Lamb’s Tales from Shakespeare](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_from_Shakespeare). The main character was embarrassed to be seen with his copy of the book, mortified that anyone might think he’d be reading Shakespeare in anything other than the original text. > > [Looks like it is still available](http://www.amazon.com/Tales-Shakespeare-Charles-Lamb/dp/1492152285/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403063629&sr=1-1&keywords=charles+lamb), although since it was first published in 1807 you may end up having to start a Thread titled “Any good translations of Charles Lamb’s ‘Tales from Shakespeare’ into modern English?” I have a copy of _Lamb’s Tales_. I love Shakespeare, but my ex-wife had little exposure to it. We got _Lamb’s Tales_ as a way for her to understand the stories of the plays when we went to see them performed. I guess I didn’t do a great job of explaining what she would see, and the book helped a great deal. Although _Lamb’s Tales_ was originally written in 1807, it is readable and understandable to speakers of today’s English. The stories are just that–stories–written in prose, in the third person. They lack the poetry of the original, and the puns, and the wordplay; but if my ex-wife’s experience is anything to go by, they do give the person who is unfamiliar with Shakespeare’s English the general gist of the stories that he is presenting. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/51 "2014-06-19T06:52:04Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Thank you for that. While Hamlet’s not my favorite play to begin with, I do adore Kenneth Branaugh, but I just couldn’t get through that production. I was really doubting my judgment! I’m glad to hear someone else didn’t like it either. There’s a _reason_ most productions cut the Fortinbras stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/52 "2014-06-19T08:18:22Z")
Oh, and if anyone believes Shakespeare didn’t write his plays I will personally take a bare bodkin to them. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/53 "2014-06-19T08:23:02Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Bottom line is, if you’re not going to make the effort to develop an appreciation for Shakespeare’s writing, then there’s no real point to getting a stripped down plot summary. Just read up on it at Wiki. And the point is that such an opinion is elitist and thus inherently wrong. A translation into modern idiom would not be a stripped down plot summary. For one thing, it wouldn’t be a summary, since it would by definition have to be at least as long as the original. Furthermore, a well-made translation does everything it can to get the wordplay of the original, so it wouldn’t just be plot. Yes, watching a play version helps with understanding, but it has the same drawbacks of watching a video instead of reading an article. What helps is that the actors understand what they are saying and act it out. But what hurts is that you can’t vary the speed of the language based on how easy it is to understand. I watched a play version of Much To Do About Nothing, and I can barely tell you what happened. I didn’t get any of the wordplay at all, for sure, and I’m sure I missed a lot of the dialog. What made it entertaining was all the acting, none of which was actually something written by Shakespeare. (Especially in my version, since it was performed in a Comedia dell’Arte style.) Watching it performed is not the be-all-end-all solution. Ultimately, the prose will have to be translated. The only question is whether you will do it in your head to make sense of it–perhaps with help from annotations–or whether it will be done for you. I mean, think about it. Would you say reading a plot summary of the Iliad is the equivalent of reading a translation? That argument is just as silly about Shakespeare. Maybe reading the original is better, but a translation is still better than any plot summary. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/54 "2014-06-19T08:52:20Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Oh, go for the cheap joke, I say… But, seriously, here’s a bit of what they did to Milton… > > Original: “1. Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit > 2.Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast > 3.Brought Death into the World, and all our woe, > 4.With loss of Eden, till one greater Man > 5.Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat, > 6.Sing Heav’nly Muse, that on the secret top > 7.Of Oreb, or of Sinai, didst inspire.” > > Simplified: “Tell me about man’s first sin, when he tasted the forbidden fruit and caused all our troubles, until Jesus came and saved us. > Inspire me with this knowledge. You are the heavenly spirit who inspired Moses in his teachings.” > > Emetic, innit? I agree. But that’s because it’s not a translation. They didn’t even try to keep the poetry. I’m no poet, but even I can do better on a first draft. Sing, o heavenly muse, When man first disobeyed, when he tasted The fruit of the forbidden tree. The taste that brought death and sorrow into the world. The one man who lost Eden, until a greater man Restored the glory of all creation And took his seat beside the Father. Sing, o heavenly muse, Of what you did inspire, when on the top Of mount Horeb or Sinai, the secrets you told. But, if I do that, then you’d probably criticize how it’s nothing like the original, so I can understand some not even trying. And, yes, I’d agree that I’d rather hear the original. But I could see the version above being used for subtitles. And that, I wonder, might be the best way to see Shakespeare. You’d have the immediate understanding of the subtitles, but also the beauty of the language would still be there. But I just hate the KJV-only style worship of Shakespeare. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/55 "2014-06-19T08:59:37Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > …Anecdote: I’ve heard that most modern audiences need about ten minutes for their brains to adjust to hearing the Shakespearean style spoken aloud. I don’t know if that’s true. It wouldn’t surprise me though, because being good at listening to Shakespeare is no different than being good at any sort of code-switching language activity and people do that all time. So making sense of different vocab and language use, is something the brain is used to doing… Baz Luhrmann’s \*Romeo + Juliet \*begins as a TV news broadcast–talking heads backed by captioned videos identifying the players; then the words are repeated–like an incantation. You can see the beginning in this “[fan made trailer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck_YBss2o7E)”–with a few later scenes included toward the end. As a Lurhmann film, the art direction was eye-popping, the musical numbers were modern & ear-busting–but the language was pure Shakespeare. With a few cuts–because there are always cuts. I first saw the film just after it opened, in a theater packed with a very young crowd. We were all sucked right in. Julian Fellowes did his own version recently–with “traditional” production values. But he rewrote it because we poor peons lack his Public School education, doncha know. I haven’t seen it but it was not well received. Shakespeare is meant to be seen, not read. A long-ago college professor/failed poet tried to make me hate Shakespeare by dryly intoning his Freudian theories from his yellowed notebook. Utterly tone deaf about the language–no wonder his one slender volume of verse was a fixture in used-book sections throughout town for so long. Films will do but live performances are better. Every summer since 1975, dumbass Houstonians have braved the heat, humidity & mosquitoes to catch the Houston Shakespeare Festival. Two plays for free! All in Early Modern English. (No, it’s not a “dialect.”) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/56 "2014-06-20T00:15:31Z")
Milton in a paragraph, not verse. A little clarification of what was being talked about at the moment. Spelling updated and some archaicisms dropped because “heav’nly” is pronounced the same as “heavenly” these days and “didst inspire,” even updated to “did inspire,” is still awkward and archaic and pointlessly flowery compared with “inspired.” Even by Milton’s time the Saxon “do” was being phased out. The first sentence could be less awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original as I could. And no more numbered lines, which are just stupid and interrupt the scan, even though you don’t say them. “Sing, Heavenly Muse, of Man’s first disobedience, and of the fruit of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste brought Death into the world. Sing of our woe with the loss of Eden, until one greater Man restored us, and we regained the blissful Seat. Sing of that which the secret top of Oreb, or of Sinai, inspired.” So, who wants to do the lolcat version? The one I found isn’t as advertised. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/57 "2014-06-20T04:54:21Z")
lolcat Milton? And a Lego version of Pilgrim’s Progress! (Well, why not… Disney comics did a pretty good version of Dante’s Inferno…with Mickey Mouse as Dante. The writer even kept the terza rima!) (Donald Duck, in the circle of the wrathful, was hilarious!) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/58 "2014-06-20T05:14:20Z")
You’ve seen the plots put into modern plays and movies many times, and most of Shakespeare’s plots were retreads of traditional plots. What sets them apart is the depth he gives to the characters and the language he uses. He is as good a writer as any that ever lived, and he wrote in our language. It will take a few hours to get used to, and you have to give it your whole attention, but definitely see it put on. DVDs are plentiful. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/59 "2014-06-20T05:42:07Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > (No, it’s not a “dialect.”) Yes, it is. All English is one dialect or another of English, it’s just that some dialects are more prestigious than others. It’s like people who declare they don’t have an accent - bullcrap, _everyone_ has an accent when they speak. The elitists can whine all they want, or sneer at the unwashed masses and go _hur, hur, they’re too dumb to understand!_ but the fact is that to people who haven’t been exposed to that particular type of English before it is impenetrable. The more you insist on some arbitrary purity the fewer people will bother with the works. Which would be a shame. Really, it’s like people who get twitchy over sub-titles for operas. It’s so much more enjoyable if the audience can actually _understand_ what’s going on. Having to look up annotations every other sentence really degrades the entire experience. And don’t get me started on _edited_ Shakespeare - if you can’t bear the thought of 14 year olds reading/performing something with sex or bathroom humor in it don’t make reading the thing a requirement, then chop out the bits you find offensive. I was rather shocked to note the differences between my school’s officially issued text of _Romeo and Juliet_ and the unexpurgated version on my mother’s bookshelf. Frankly, that’s worse than putting it into modern idiom. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016/60 "2014-06-20T06:09:21Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The elitists can whine all they want, or sneer at the unwashed masses and go _hur, hur, they’re too dumb to understand!_ but the fact is that to people who haven’t been exposed to that particular type of English before it is impenetrable. The more you insist on some arbitrary purity the fewer people will bother with the works. Which would be a shame. Someone who’s more into the theater scene can correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Shakespeare still the single most frequently performed playwright in the world? If his language is so impenetrable, how does he pack so many people into theaters around the world? Is it just elitists who go? I had no idea the elite were so common! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-good-translations-of-the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-into-modern-english/691016.md?page=4)