# When will Shakespeare be translated into Modern English? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 6, 2008, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147 "2008-04-06T03:11:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/101 "2008-04-07T23:31:43Z")
[QUOTE=Anne Neville] _Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare_ (yes, written by _that_ Asimov). It has pretty much what you want. [/QUOTE] I have it, of course. And no, it is nothing like what I want. Asimov could handle a little general history, but most of the interesting stuff was beyond his capabilities. I mean that in a technical sense, not a comment on his intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![maggenpye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@maggenpye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maggenpye)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/102 "2008-04-08T00:03:42Z")
For young kids, there’s always [Charles and Mary Lamb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_from_Shakespeare), though some of their interpretations seemed way off when I read them. I fully agree with the idea that they’re \*plays \*and work best when seen and then studied later - like getting the book of the movie. Seeing multiple versions of the same play always guarantees that I’ll grab my _Complete Works_ and settle down for a good read. I don’t find Shakespeare easy, but very much worth the effort. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/103 "2008-04-08T00:14:46Z")
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] appleciders writes: \> Many plays written by Shakespeare’s contemporaries are still read and \> performed today, including those by Ben Jonson, Noah Webster and \> Christopher Marlowe. You mean John Webster. [/QUOTE] Good call. Performing the dictionary is downright dull. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/104 "2008-04-08T00:36:57Z")
[QUOTE=TV time] I find it an interesting point of view that people want works of art dumbed down for them rather than stepping up to the work. I’ll take my Shakespeare as it stands. [/QUOTE] It’s not dumbing down, it’s [updating](http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/michelangelos_david_updated). ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/105 "2008-04-08T00:51:39Z")
[QUOTE=Malienation] How many people really enjoy going to one of Shakespeare’s plays? I mean, 15 minutes and you’re checking your watch every 5 minutes after that. AFAICT, going to one of Shakespeare’s plays makes people feel virtuous, somehow, like they just did a good deed or something. It’s that “suffering is good for you” thing. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] Are you actually suggesting that audiences and theatrical companies have kept Shakespeare’s better-known plays in continuous production for literally centuries, generation after generation, in spite of _nobody actually liking them_? I guess that not only I, but the rest of the audience were faking it at all the performances I’ve been to. (My favorite Shakespeare experiences have been at the Atlanta Shakespeare Tavern, a nice intimate theatre.) ETA: Enjoying a Shakespeare play makes me feel entertained and mentally stimulated. Speaking to you with civility makes me feel virtuous. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/106 "2008-04-08T01:06:50Z")
[QUOTE=maggenpye] For young kids, there’s always [Charles and Mary Lamb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_from_Shakespeare), though some of their interpretations seemed way off when I read them. [/QUOTE] I think I have that book, and I remember thinking it leaves a reader with the impression that the moral of many Shakespeare plays is “children should listen to their parents.” ---
**Author:** ![TV\_time](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f17d59/32.png) [@TV\_time](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TV_time)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/107 "2008-04-08T01:09:01Z")
[QUOTE=Nancarrow] It’s not dumbing down, it’s [updating](http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/michelangelos_david_updated). [/QUOTE] “Nature hath fram’d strange animals in her time.” (Shakespeare’s) _The Merchant of Venice_ ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/108 "2008-04-08T04:08:28Z")
[QUOTE=maggenpye] For young kids, there’s always [Charles and Mary Lamb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_from_Shakespeare), though some of their interpretations seemed way off when I read them. [/QUOTE] I’d agree. While it’s kind of a cool old book to have (mine’s a bit beat up, but intact), the stories are altered to varying degrees, obviously with the younger reader in mind. From the preface: > [@](#): > > It has been wished to make these Tales easy reading for very young children. To the utmost of their ability the writers have constantly kept this in mind; but the subjects of most of them made this a very difficult task. It was no easy matter to give the histories of men and women in terms familiar to the apprehension of a very young mind. Understandable. But they immediately continue as follows: > [@](#): > > For young ladies, too, it has been the intention chiefly to write; because boys being generally permitted the use of their fathers’ libraries at a much earlier age than girls are, they frequently have the best scenes of Shakespeare by heart, before their sisters are permitted to look into this manly book; and, therefore, instead of recommending these Tales to the perusal of young gentlemen who can read them so much better in the originals, their kind assistance is rather requested in explaining to their sisters such parts as are hardest for them to understand: and when they have helped them to get over the difficulties, then perhaps they will read to them (carefully selecting what is proper for a young sister’s ear) some passage which has pleased them in one of these stories, in the very words of the scene from which it is taken… Um, yeah. It should be noted, however, that in the same Preface, the Lambs also say this: > [@](#): > > In those Tales which have been taken from the Tragedies, the young readers will perceive, when they come to see the source from which these stories are derived, that Shakespeare’s own words, with little alteration, recur very frequently in the narrative as well as in the dialogue; but in those made from the Comedies the writers found themselves scarcely ever able to turn his words into the narrative form: therefore it is feared that, in them, dialogue has been made use of too frequently for young people not accustomed to the dramatic form of writing. But this fault, if it be a fault, has been caused by an earnest wish to give as much of Shakespeare’s own words as possible: and if the “He said” and “She said,” the question and the reply, should sometimes seem tedious to their young ears, they must pardon it, because it was the only way in which could be given to them a few hints and little foretastes of the great pleasure which awaits them in their elder years, when they come to the rich treasures from which these small and valueless coins are extracted; pretending to no other merit than as faint and imperfect stamps of Shakespeare’s matchless image. Faint and imperfect images they must be called, because the beauty of his language is too frequently destroyed by the necessity of changing many of his excellent words into words far less expressive of his true sense, to make it read something like prose; and even in some few places, where his blank verse is given unaltered, as hoping from its simple plainness to cheat the young readers into the belief that they are reading prose, yet still his language being transplanted from its own natural soil and wild poetic garden, it must want much of its native beauty. Strong sentiment, that. Anyway, I guess the lesson here is that **Malienation** should ask a young boy for help in understanding the material. ---
**Author:** ![Malienation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Malienation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malienation)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/109 "2008-04-08T07:07:13Z")
Huh. Lots of responses. I can’t respond to them all specifically, so I’ll cover general points. 1. Protests that even little kids claim to have no trouble understanding WS are missing the point. Just because one claims to understand anything doesn’t mean one actually does. The appearance of familiar words can deceive, since words that appear to be related to modern words (only with different spelling) can be completely unrelated, with different roots. And words can change meaning over time, sometimes drastically so. 2. Okay, studying one of the annotated versions helps. But doesn’t that reduce studying Shakespeare to largely a vocabulary lesson? This line means this because this word means that. How is learning to understand outmoded word usages and grammar educational? Can one really appreciate WS under these conditions? I say no. 3. Along those lines, I reiterate that the true value of learning entails work, often hard work, but not true suffering. Arguments otherwise tend to sound like Latin instructors who used to opine, “a solid base in Latin makes it easier to learn other languages like Italian or French.” Maybe that’s true. But learning Italian or French directly is easier than learning Latin plus Italian or French. There’s only so many hours in a day, and so many ideas one can soak up. It just seems WS’s learning/work ratio is a little skimpy. 4. For those who claim that WS has to be appreciated in the language of his time, consider: how do you know, really, that he was all that talented and popular in his time? We accept that he was talented in his time, but how do we really know? Do you expect history to read, “Mr. Moneybags sponsored a play by Shakespeare, and the audience responded with embarrassed silence”, if that actually happened? When you’re rich and powerful, the press is unlikely to respond as such. The point is, history is written by the winners. And don’t let WS fans fool you, his popularity since his time was not unbroken. After his death, he was gradually forgotten, then rediscovered later. Those that rediscovered him, how did they come to see him as a literary genius? I’m not saying he wasn’t talented in his time. But how do we really know? 5. It’s true that the invention of the printing press has drastically slowed down the evolution of languages in their written form (not just English). As such, it may be quite some time before Shakespeare appears to the English-speaking world as Chaucer does to us now. But how long? 6. The language is not being dumbed down, not that this idea is new. Linguists tend to believe that as long as complex ideas can be expressed in a language it is not “dumber” than any other language that can express those same ideas. Only if a language is a pidgin is a language really “dumb”, since pidgins are languages of convenience and not a people’s mother tongue. Nonetheless, every generation claims the language is going to hell in a handbasket. Every one. Put in your good teeth and deal with it, **eleanorigby**. Now, it’s certainly true that casual writing like email exchanges aren’t exercises in fine writing. But that’s because the advent of email means that people actually write more than they used to, and as such have to keep it short and sweet . Respond to 20 emails with 20 carefully written and thoughtful replies and there goes your day. 7. Shakespeare’s popular? My gym is pretty crowded. Does that mean exercise is popular? No, because it’s the same dedicated people day in and day out. By and large, the truth is that no, exercise is not popular. Most people just lumber from their refrigerator to their SUV. It just seems that exercise is popular if you go to a gym. The way I see it, Shakespearean revivals attract the same people over and over. That creates the same illusion of popularity. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/110 "2008-04-08T08:28:35Z")
[QUOTE=Malienation] Huh. Lots of responses. I can’t respond to them all specifically, so I’ll cover general points. 1. Protests that even little kids claim to have no trouble understanding WS are missing the point. Just because one claims to understand anything doesn’t mean one actually does. The appearance of familiar words can deceive, since words that appear to be related to modern words (only with different spelling) can be completely unrelated, with different roots. And words can change meaning over time, sometimes drastically so. 2. Okay, studying one of the annotated versions helps. But doesn’t that reduce studying Shakespeare to largely a vocabulary lesson? This line means this because this word means that. How is learning to understand outmoded word usages and grammar educational? Can one really appreciate WS under these conditions? I say no. 3. Along those lines, I reiterate that the true value of learning entails work, often hard work, but not true suffering. Arguments otherwise tend to sound like Latin instructors who used to opine, “a solid base in Latin makes it easier to learn other languages like Italian or French.” Maybe that’s true. But learning Italian or French directly is easier than learning Latin plus Italian or French. There’s only so many hours in a day, and so many ideas one can soak up. It just seems WS’s learning/work ratio is a little skimpy. 4. For those who claim that WS has to be appreciated in the language of his time, consider: how do you know, really, that he was all that talented and popular in his time? We accept that he was talented in his time, but how do we really know? Do you expect history to read, “Mr. Moneybags sponsored a play by Shakespeare, and the audience responded with embarrassed silence”, if that actually happened? When you’re rich and powerful, the press is unlikely to respond as such. The point is, history is written by the winners. And don’t let WS fans fool you, his popularity since his time was not unbroken. After his death, he was gradually forgotten, then rediscovered later. Those that rediscovered him, how did they come to see him as a literary genius? I’m not saying he wasn’t talented in his time. But how do we really know? 5. It’s true that the invention of the printing press has drastically slowed down the evolution of languages in their written form (not just English). As such, it may be quite some time before Shakespeare appears to the English-speaking world as Chaucer does to us now. But how long? 6. The language is not being dumbed down, not that this idea is new. Linguists tend to believe that as long as complex ideas can be expressed in a language it is not “dumber” than any other language that can express those same ideas. Only if a language is a pidgin is a language really “dumb”, since pidgins are languages of convenience and not a people’s mother tongue. Nonetheless, every generation claims the language is going to hell in a handbasket. Every one. Put in your good teeth and deal with it, **eleanorigby**. Now, it’s certainly true that casual writing like email exchanges aren’t exercises in fine writing. But that’s because the advent of email means that people actually write more than they used to, and as such have to keep it short and sweet . Respond to 20 emails with 20 carefully written and thoughtful replies and there goes your day. 7. Shakespeare’s popular? My gym is pretty crowded. Does that mean exercise is popular? No, because it’s the same dedicated people day in and day out. By and large, the truth is that no, exercise is not popular. Most people just lumber from their refrigerator to their SUV. It just seems that exercise is popular if you go to a gym. The way I see it, Shakespearean revivals attract the same people over and over. That creates the same illusion of popularity. [/QUOTE] At this stage you really are just embarrassing yourself. ---
**Author:** ![maggenpye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecc23a/32.png) [@maggenpye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/maggenpye)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/111 "2008-04-08T09:15:44Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] I think I have that book, and I remember thinking it leaves a reader with the impression that the moral of many Shakespeare plays is “children should listen to their parents.” [/QUOTE] Absolutely perfect point. I kept thinking “They mean well, but I don’t think they understand what ‘country matters’ really are.” There was a review of Hamlet back when the Gibson movie came out, the author cherry-picked enough of the text to prove that the whole reason Hamlet didn’t follow his father onto the throne was his alcoholism. She finished the theory with Gertrude’s line; “No, no, the drink, the drink,-O my dear Hamlet!” **Cervaise** : I have to admit, I didn’t read the intro. Kind of glad about that now, though the last paragraph you quoted was very pertinent. I have just finished _Shakespeare’s Women_ by Angela Pit. Which I found more enjoyable, especially where she compares the characters in the plays with women’s place in society at the time. For the reluctant reader, she also provides a brief breakdown of each play as its discussed. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/112 "2008-04-08T12:17:43Z")
[QUOTE=Malienation] 1. Protests that even little kids claim to have no trouble understanding WS are missing the point. Just because one claims to understand anything doesn’t mean one actually does. [/quote] I definitely missed plenty of things in Shakespeare when I read them the first time. Isn’t that the way it works for kids with any piece of art that has any complexity? That’s what teaching is for. > [@](#): > > 1. Okay, studying one of the annotated versions helps. But doesn’t that reduce studying Shakespeare to largely a vocabulary lesson? If you don’t like it, maybe. If you do, no. You’re free to continue to insist that it’s impossible to enjoy, but I never read Shakespeare to enhance my vocabulary or because I enjoyed suffering. > [@](#): > > 1. Along those lines, I reiterate that the true value of learning entails work, often hard work, but not true suffering. […] It just seems WS’s learning/work ratio is a little skimpy. And you’re entitled to that opinion, but swearing up and down that nobody else likes it is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > 1. For those who claim that WS has to be appreciated in the language of his time, consider: how do you know, really, that he was all that talented and popular in his time? I believe there’s a hefty amount of evidence, including the reports of his peers, some performance records, scattered evidence of sales of his plays when they were printed and so on. Oh yes, and the fact that the plays have been performed on and off for centuries, and the fact that if he was unsuccessful we probably wouldn’t know anything about him in the first place. > [@](#): > > 1. Shakespeare’s popular? My gym is pretty crowded. Does that mean exercise is popular? No, because it’s the same dedicated people day in and day out. This is a lousy comparison. If your gym is the only one in the state, then no, exercise isn’t popular. If your gym has branches all around the country that are well-attended, I’d say that’s evidence that exercise is popular - at least popular enough to keep them in business. Saying Shakespeare isn’t popular because people who don’t see plays don’t see his plays kinda misses the point. If people have been performing and watching his works for a few hundred years, I’d say he’s popular. ---
**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:** [April 8, 2008, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/113 "2008-04-08T12:37:24Z")
[QUOTE=Malienation] …7. Shakespeare’s popular? My gym is pretty crowded. Does that mean exercise is popular? No, because it’s the same dedicated people day in and day out. By and large, the truth is that no, exercise is not popular. Most people just lumber from their refrigerator to their SUV. It just seems that exercise is popular if you go to a gym. The way I see it, Shakespearean revivals attract the same people over and over. That creates the same illusion of popularity. [/QUOTE] I find exercise sweaty & tiring, but I’m not demanding your gym take out all that awkward equipment & install comfy chairs. Lovely drinks & rich food would foster pleasant relaxation–but I doubt your gym will change. Somehow, it (& many others) will remain in business. Since 1975, the University of Houston’s Drama Department has been performing Shakespeare every summer, in Hermannn Park’s Miller Outdoor Theatre. [This year](http://www.milleroutdoortheatre.com/schedule/calendarfull.asp?Category=All), they’re doing _Julius Caesar_ & _Cymbeline_. A bunch of dumb Texans have been braving August heat & mosquitos for years–to hear those “outmoded” words. And local low-budget theater folks did some fine Shakespeare productions a few years ago. For example, they did _King Lear_ in a crummy warehouse/studio, with costumes from Goodwill. I went twice. Shakespeare’s not for you. Different strokes. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/114 "2008-04-08T13:28:19Z")
If this is a typical quotation from Charles and Mary Lamb’s _Tales from Shakespeare_: \> But this fault, if it be a fault, has been caused by an earnest wish to give as \> much of Shakespeare’s own words as possible: and if the “He said” and “She \> said,” the question and the reply, should sometimes seem tedious to their \> young ears, they must pardon it, because it was the only way in which could be \> given to them a few hints and little foretastes of the great pleasure which \> awaits them in their elder years, when they come to the rich treasures from \> which these small and valueless coins are extracted; pretending to no other \> merit than as faint and imperfect stamps of Shakespeare’s matchless image. then it would be better not to give this book to a child. Find a modern book that retells Shakespeare for children. The Lambs were halfway to Shakespeare, since they wrote two hundred years ago and Shakespeare was four hundred years ago. If the problem is modernizing the language, this isn’t the solution. Malienation writes: \> And don’t let WS fans fool you, his popularity since his time was not unbroken. \> After his death, he was gradually forgotten, then rediscovered later. Those that \> rediscovered him, how did they come to see him as a literary genius? Shakespeare’s greatest period of popularity was probably in the nineteenth century when he was practically worshipped. I don’t see any reason to think that his popularity at the time had anything to do with rich patrons. His plays were so generally popular that, as I understand it, there were English acting companies travelling the Wild West in the U.S. filling theaters doing his plays. \> As such, it may be quite some time before Shakespeare appears to the English- \> speaking world as Chaucer does to us now. But how long? As I said, three to five hundred years depending on how fast the evolution of the English language will be. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/115 "2008-04-08T13:51:32Z")
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] \> As such, it may be quite some time before Shakespeare appears to the English- \> speaking world as Chaucer does to us now. But how long? As I said, three to five hundred years depending on how fast the evolution of the English language will be. [/QUOTE] That’s an interesting question, and we are living in interesting times, where the answer is quite uncertain. Back in Will Shakespeare’s time, the invention of the printing press about 150 years earlier had slowed down some language change, because spelling had become more fixed, even with the [Great Vowel Shift](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift) changing many sounds in English. Now, we are the first generation that regularly listens to English as it was spoken up to 80 years ago; and those movies from the late 1920s up to the present are likely to be preserved and listened to for the indefinite future. I suspect that this will have an effect of slowing down changes in how English is spoken, in a similar way to how printing slowed down spelling changes. So, since people in the 25th or even the 30th century will have access to 20th century films and TV programs, I think they will still be able to understand them easily, just as we can still quite easily read books printed in the 16th century. (That’s not an argument for no change in English: there will be plenty of new vocabulary, and some changes in other aspects, while some 20th-century vocabulary will seem very old-fashioned, just as some 16th-century vocabulary seems old-fashioned to us). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/116 "2008-04-08T14:26:56Z")
[QUOTE=Malienation] 4. For those who claim that WS has to be appreciated in the language of his time, consider: how do you know, really, that he was all that talented and popular in his time? We accept that he was talented in his time, but how do we really know? Do you expect history to read, “Mr. Moneybags sponsored a play by Shakespeare, and the audience responded with embarrassed silence”, if that actually happened? When you’re rich and powerful, the press is unlikely to respond as such. The point is, history is written by the winners. And don’t let WS fans fool you, his popularity since his time was not unbroken. After his death, he was gradually forgotten, then rediscovered later. Those that rediscovered him, how did they come to see him as a literary genius? I’m not saying he wasn’t talented in his time. But how do we really know? [/QUOTE] The press? A rich and powerful actor? Please stop. We know much of what we know about actors from their contemporaries and rivals. The press took no notice of them. They didn’t do reviews. Actors were among the lowest forms of life, and lived on the good will of sponsors who saw them pretty much as court jesters. Each sponsor was a jealous rival of every other sponsor and were only too anxious to spread slander about the others. He was successful in the crudest possibly way. He made money. Audiences responded. He built theaters. He bought himself a house. He left an inheritance. tagos is correct: you are embarrassing yourself. The cover story in the March 29 issue of New Scientist magazine is on the future of English. You have to be a subscriber to read it online, unfortunately. The predictions mostly say that English is accumulating a multitude of dialects as it becomes a standard second language in so many other countries, and that these may evolve into almost incomprehensible variants. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/117 "2008-04-08T14:33:27Z")
[QUOTE=maggenpye] For young kids, there’s always [Charles and Mary Lamb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_from_Shakespeare), though some of their interpretations seemed way off when I read them. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Marley23] think I have that book, and I remember thinking it leaves a reader with the impression that the moral of many Shakespeare plays is “children should listen to their parents.” [/QUOTE] And, of course, Mary Lamb was the very model of filial obedience! ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/118 "2008-04-08T14:40:53Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase] The predictions mostly say that English is accumulating a multitude of dialects as it becomes a standard second language in so many other countries, and that these may evolve into almost incomprehensible variants. [/QUOTE] I’ve heard this argument before, and I find it unconvincing. Back around the time of the end of the Roman Empire, with Latin scattered over most of western Europe, Latin became several different languages because people lost contact with each other, so people from Paris rarely spoke with people from Rome. Today is completely different: a large variety of technologies mean that people from different parts of the world hear and talk to each other every day. What is far more likely to happen is that different varieties of English converge on each other, just as over the last few centuries different dialects within England have become more similar, partly through the education system (which standardises language very strongly). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/119 "2008-04-08T14:59:51Z")
[QUOTE=Giles] I’ve heard this argument before, and I find it unconvincing. Back around the time of the end of the Roman Empire, with Latin scattered over most of western Europe, Latin became several different languages because people lost contact with each other, so people from Paris rarely spoke with people from Rome. Today is completely different: a large variety of technologies mean that people from different parts of the world hear and talk to each other every day. What is far more likely to happen is that different varieties of English converge on each other, just as over the last few centuries different dialects within England have become more similar, partly through the education system (which standardises language very strongly). [/QUOTE] Could be. I was just reporting what the article said. Personally, I place no stock in predictions of what’s going to happen in human society over a period of several hundred years. No such prediction has ever been right in the past and there’s no reason to think today’s predictions will be any better. People just can’t help doing them though. ---
**Author:** ![Malienation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Malienation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malienation)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2008, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147/120 "2008-04-08T15:21:56Z")
[QUOTE=Wendell Wagner] Shakespeare’s greatest period of popularity was probably in the nineteenth century when he was practically worshipped. I don’t see any reason to think that his popularity at the time had anything to do with rich patrons. His plays were so generally popular that, as I understand it, there were English acting companies travelling the Wild West in the U.S. filling theaters doing his plays. [/QUOTE] Yep, that’s true. But they didn’t perform Shakespeare as written. They made substantial revisions in the language for clarity. They changed endings. They even left out whole acts. Not the same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-will-shakespeare-be-translated-into-modern-english/444147.md?page=7)