A Facelift for Shakespeare

A new translation effort aims to make all of Shakespeare’s plays comprehensible to today’s audiences

ENLARGE

Much of Shakespeare goes over our heads because, even though we recognize the words, their meaning often has changed significantly over the past four centuries. Illustration: Pep Montserrat

John H. McWhorter

Sept. 25, 2015 11:28 a.m. ET

48 COMMENTS

The Oregon Shakespeare Festival will announce next week that it has commissioned translations of all 39 of the Bard’s plays into modern English, with the idea of having them ready to perform in three years. Yes, translations—because Shakespeare’s English is so far removed from the English of 2015 that it often interferes with our own comprehension.

Most educated people are uncomfortable admitting that Shakespeare’s language often feels more medicinal than enlightening. We have been told since childhood that Shakespeare’s words are “elevated” and that our job is to reach up to them, or that his language is “poetic,” or that it takes British actors to get his meaning across.

But none of these rationalizations holds up. Much of Shakespeare goes over our heads because, even though we recognize the words, their meaning often has changed significantly over the past four centuries.

Related Reading

The Evolution of Profanity (7/17/15)
What the World Will Speak in 2115 (1/2/15(
All Hail Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard in the ‘Macbeth’ Trailer (6/4/15)

In “Hamlet,” when Polonius famously advises Laertes to “neither a borrower nor a lender be,” much of what he says before that point reaches our modern ears in a fragmentary state at best. In the lines, “These few precepts in thy memory / Look thou character,” look means “make sure that,” and character is a verb, meaning “to write.” Polonius is telling Laertes, in short, “Note these things well.”

He goes on to say: “Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment,” which seems to mean that you should let other people criticize you but refrain from judging them—strange advice. But by “take censure” Shakespeare meant “evaluate,” so that Polonius is really saying “assess” other men but don’t jump to conclusions about them.

We can piece these meanings together, of course, by reading the play and consulting stacks of footnotes. But Shakespeare didn’t intend for us to do that. He wrote plays for performance. We’re supposed to be able to hear and understand what’s spoken on the stage, in real time.

That’s hard when we run up against a passage like this one from “King Lear,” when Edmund is dismissing those who look down on him for his low origins:

Why “bastard”? Wherefore “base”?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true
As honest madam’s issue?

Isn’t it odd for someone to present being “well compact” as a selling point? But for Shakespeare, compact meant “constructed.” And why would Edmund defend himself against the charge of illegitimacy by noting his generosity? Because in Shakespeare’s day, generous could mean “noble.” Nor did madam then have the shady connotation that it does today.

Understanding generous to mean “noble” is not a matter of appreciating elevated language: We cannot reach up to a meaning that is no longer available to us. Nor is there anything poetic in knowing that character was once a verb meaning “to write”: In 2015, that usage is simply opaque, and being British doesn’t help matters.

The idea of translating Shakespeare into modern English has elicited predictable resistance in the past. To prove that the centuries were not so formidable a divide, the actor and author Ben Crystal has documented that only about 10% of the words that Shakespeare uses are incomprehensible in modern English. But that argument is easy to turn on its head. When every 10th word makes no sense—it’s no accident that the word decimate started as meaning “to reduce by a 10th” and later came to mean “to destroy”—a playgoer’s experience is vastly diluted.

It is true that translated Shakespeare is no longer Shakespeare in the strictest sense. But are we satisfied with Shakespeare’s being genuinely meaningful only to an elite few unless edited to death or carefully excerpted, with most of the rest of us genuflecting in the name of “culture” and keeping our confusion to ourselves? Should we have to pore laboriously over Shakespeare on the page before seeing his work performed?

I suspect that many skeptics would change their tune after experiencing Shakespeare’s meaning without strain. Consider Macbeth’s famous soliloquy, as he ponders his plan to kill King Duncan:

ENLARGE

Kenneth Branagh rehearses ’Macbeth’ at the Park Avenue Armory in May 2014. Photo: Stephanie Berger Photography

Besides, this Duncan
Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been
So clear in his great office, that his virtues
Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his taking-off.

This sounds like the English we speak, but what does it mean to “bear one’s faculties”? Or to be “clear” in one’s office? And why would there be damnation in Duncan’s “taking off”? Taking off where? To lunch?

Here is that same brief passage as rendered by a teacher named Conrad Spoke, who produced what he calls a “revolutionary 10% translation” in the interest of “allowing every student to make contact with the original text”:

Besides, this Duncan
Hath borne authority so meek, hath been
So pure in his great office, that his virtues
Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his knocking-off.

The language of Mr. Spoke’s translation is hardly elementary; his version of the play still requires closer attention than a night at “Mamma Mia.” Is it pure Shakespeare? No, but I for one would say the utility and even pleasure in hearing authority instead of faculties and knocking-off instead of taking-off justify a more flexible concept of authenticity.

I suspect that Shakespeare himself, in his eagerness to reach audiences, would be perplexed by the idea that our job today is to settle for only half understanding his work. Let’s embrace Shakespeare for real and let him speak to us.

—Dr. McWhorter teaches linguistics, American studies, philosophy and music at Columbia University. His latest book is “The Language Hoax” (Oxford University Press).

6363
159
Save Article

Sign In to Save

Subscribe to WSJ
Text Size

Regular

Medium

Large
Google+

Print

GARRETT A. HUGHES subscriber

OF COURSE MR. MCWHORTER IS RIGHT

Who needs to grope at meaning when the bon mot or mots are no further away than the tip of our pens (metaphorically speaking)?

Valentine:

What light is light, if Silvia be not seen?

What joy is joy, if Silvia be not by—

Unless it be to think that she is by

And feed upon the shadow of perfection?

Except I be by Silvia in the night,

There is no music in the nightingale.

Unless I look on Silvia in the day,

There is no day for me to look upon."

Who needs that dribble? How much more enlightening if Valentine would just come right out and say what he wants!

VAL:

I miss Silvia; she makes my day.

My nights too.

(Winks at audience)

It's gonna be dark soon.

I gotta get her over here.

(LOUD rap music is playing in the background. Val slumps on the couch, pulls out his iPhone, and begins texting)

________________

But why stop with Shakespeare? Take Mona Lisa for example . . .

48 comments

Newest | Oldest

Matthew Kessman subscriber

Such a shame. What a well intentioned mistake.

The beauty of Shakespeare is not in the comprehension of each word, each sentence, but in the lyrical qualities such incomprehensibility holds. The word play as is is truly magical. Moreover, it does something to the brain that is badly needed: to engage the right side - the creative side - of the brain. There's no need to be literal. The stories are rather simple. The concepts are laid bare. Let the magic of incomprehensibility engage the imagination. Efforts to "modernize" the text destroy this magical beauty.

Tim Torkildson subscriber

If a mountain ain't convenient we can blow it to the moon;

if a river is too soggy we'll replace it with a dune.

Why tamper with the sunrise or fine tune a sunset pure?

Why is it we must meddle with the things that need no cure?

Hands OFF the Bard of Avon, all you pettifogging shrimps --

lest I feed you to Beelzebub and all his horrid imps!

Carol Rossi subscriber

I never really understood King Lear until I saw the RSC version with Ian McKellan. Then it made total, heart-stopping sense. The Bard provided the words, but it takes a talented actor to convey the meaning and emotional impact behind them. Shakespeare's works were meant to be performed.

Randall Rothey subscriber

I wonder if the good doctor, believing that all these "educated" folks who are unable to understand Shakespeare because of the age of the language, would understand Hart Crane's The Bridge any better? I seriously doubt it because like anything in life, if you're not willing to invest a certain amount of effort then don't expect much of a payoff.

Francis Mwaisela subscriber

Memo to Americans. Most English people in England only know about Shakespeare through the usual quotes from time to time. Otherwise BBC tv save millions of school kids the trouble of reading anything he wrote.Trust me our English school mistress save us from utter purgatory actually had time to read normal books we could understand from the get go,and we got to go to decent colleges also!

ROBERT HOLTON subscriber

Guess its time for the bard's work to be translated entirely to emoticons.

Aren't the problems with Shakespeare ably dealt with in annotated versions? And after all, once one is able to understand the meanings through such study, what's the remaining problem?

Yes, our language has changed greatly since the late 16th century. But it had changed almost as much by the middle of the 19th century, leaving us with the same problem as the author sees. What is it about the early 21st century that requires a fully bastardized version of words that were often appreciated by 19th century 8th graders? Could it be that we have entered into a world that can only react with WTF or LOL when they are so easily overwhelmed? .

Nirmal Chatterjee subscriber

Maybe they could just get the actors to read Cliff Notes to us. Save a lot of money on "translators" fees.

Kenneth Johnson user

The problem that Dr. McWhorter describes is real. I'm afraid that unless the general theater-going public gets a chance to more meaningfully experience the human drama and emotion in Shakespeare's plays, complete fidelity to the language will make his plays more and more of a niche form of dramatic art, like bel canto opera. It seems to me that as the decades go by, Shakespeare has become less and less relevant to theater audiences, and does not hold the same place in high school education that it used to. I think that translating Shakespeare's English into modern English should be done as lightly as possible, as long as the meaning gets through to modern audiences.

Stanley Jones subscriber

Go ahead, tinker around the edges of greatness, they will prove impervious to all of your fiddlings.

walter hauschildt subscriber

dumbing down shakespeare. the perfect opportunity for politically correct historical revisionism.

Joseph Pistone subscriber

If I were taking a course in Shakespeare, I think I would feel slighted. What is it I'm being told? Too dumb/lazy to learn? The play is the language.

Valerie Alon subscriber

Great article. I remember the Teaching Company lecture where you described how people watching Shakespeare in French enjoyed it more than you because the translation into French also put it into Modern French.

ann cain subscriber

Humph. Much ado about nothing. As somebody said, "What's so great about Hamlet? It's nothing but a bunch of quotations strung together."

John Edwards subscriber

@ann cain It also happens to be autobiographical for Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford

Teck Jin Lim subscriber

There's value in having "modernized" interpretations of The Bard's work but I feel we lose a lot by not putting in the effort to learn about the history, culture, society and indeed language that shaped Shakespeare's work.

People like to be spoon fed things that are difficult to understand these days and sometimes it's nice to have that but there will always be a greater story to be had by going deeper. The great writers were as much a product of their times as they were the brilliance they committed to the written word so we would do well to put in that effort when we are in the mood and when we have the time to appreciate greatness.

Michael Pinker subscriber

David Garrick was praised for bringing back Shakespeare’s actual texts to the theater in the 18th century after they had been bowdlerized, “translated” by those who would turn them to their own account. We’ve had a good run of real Shakespeare since then. Now are we to believe that we should revert to “translating,” in this instance dumbing down, to bring audiences someone else’s version of his plays masquerading as the real thing? Yes, Shakespeare may be a “reach” for those who do not habitually read and reread him or attend and watch performances of his plays very often, but perhaps they should change their habits, rather than be fooled into believing they are hearing Shakespeare when they’re not. “Embrace Shakespeare for real?” Isn’t “Shakespeare” the words he chose to express himself? Are they not “real” enough to lend “authenticity?” May not Shakespeare “speak to us” in his own voice? Oh, Professor McWhorter! Oh, Conrad Spoke! Oh, Oregon "Shakespeare" Festival! O tempora, o mores!

Kenneth Reed subscriber

Shake-scene (as Robert Greene called him) is never easy, and in performance his lines are exacerbated by semantic problems, inaudibility and speed--about 85 MPH. I've wondered how his contemporary audiences could comprehended it appreciably better than we do.

Jesse Cox subscriber

Why not try Shakespeare Made Easy?

Neil Ward subscriber

Couldn't disagree more. Shakespeare still works well in performance; when the cast understands the texts and directs its will with the characters', there is generally no difficulty in modern audiences', even high-school-aged ones', grasping the subtleties of the action. Difficulties may arise, not because of diction shifts, but because of some shift in social mores over the past 400 years, for instance in courtship rituals, master-servant relations, and the meaning of royalty.

The plays can be difficult for modern READERS to get through, precisely because of obsolete diction; but audiences of good performances do not have the same problem, since they pick up enough cues from the characters' wills, expressed by the performers, to bridge any semantic gaps and to feel the pull of the very concise poetry. Indeed, audience members may leave the theater thinking and speaking in 16th Century jargon for an hour or two.

Sean McCoy subscriber

Oregon Shakespeare Festival will announce with shock that after presenting the 'translated' Shakespeare, ticket sale are in the dumper. A lot of the appeal of Shakespeare in in the language he used. Better companies than Oregon have tried and failed. We'll await the report anon.

steve kallaugher subscriber

"I have of late, (but wherefore I know not) lost all my mirth..."

Actually, I do know wherefore: It's because I keep running into stupidity like this.

I saw the Branagh "Macbeth" pictured here, and didn't feel any strain whatsoever -- only great and deep pleasure.

(Sorry for that first quote. I probably should have written, "I've been really bummed out lately," so we modern idiots could understand.)

David Ecale user

@Judy Harmon Smith @David Ecale @steve kallaugher Yup! And, yet, this will pass the censors!

Ham. Lady, shall I lie in your lap? [Lying down at OPHELIA’S feet.

Oph. No, my lord.

Ham. I mean, my head upon your lap?

Oph. Ay, my lord.

Ham. Do you think I meant country matters?

Oph. I think nothing, my lord.

Ham. That’s a fair thought to lie between maids’ legs.

Oph. What is, my lord?

Ham. Nothing.

Oph. You are merry, my lord. Ham. Who, I?

@steve kallaugher "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"!

The chick said, No!

Judy Harmon Smith subscriber

@David Ecale @steve kallaugher Actually I think the phrase you quoted translates to today's language as "She says no but I think she really means yes."

John Salicco subscriber

"Translating" Shakespeare's English into modern English is like staging the play in contemporary attire and situation. It's neither better nor worse, it's different, sometimes very different.

What cannot be "translated" is original context, insinuation and idiomatic cleverness of language. To truly understand Shakespeare, you do need a certain knowledge of, not just contemporary vernacular, but Elizabethan history and politics as well. Even the costuming and staging can be of paramount importance.

I speak three languages (not counting Elizabethan) and can read Latin passably well. I have never seen a translation from any language into another which could not be debated as to its accuracy of meaning.

A "Shakespearean Translation" is an adaptation based upon the original almost in the same way movie scripts are adaptations based upon novels.

They may artistically stand upon their own merits, but they will not be Shakespeare.

wayne richardson subscriber

A silly enterprise.

Thomas Bishop subscriber

the man doth protest too much, methinks.

this is kind of like translating the bible or the odyssey.

each person gains his or her own understanding from a text, or not, as the case may be.

Max Davies subscriber

Dr McWorter doth protest too much.

Not one his examples presents anything like the difficulties of comprehension to any reasonably literate person that he claims they do. When delivered in context and by actors properly trained in delivering Shakespearean verse so as to create the intended meanings, the words are completely intelligible.

Nobody listening to Macbeth's soliloquy who has paid attention to the play will so misunderstand "borne his faculties" that he needs it to be translated into the clumsy and non-scanning "borne authority". The price to be paid for any trivial enhancement to comprehension, the loss of the Shakespeare's transcendent language, is completely unacceptable, and actually tragic for anyone who thinks Mr Spoke's plays, for they are no longer Shakespeare's, are the real thing and never discovers otherwise.

Shakespeare's own words describe Mr Spoke's butchery far more eloquently than I can. He, Mr Spoke:

.....threw a pearl away
Richer than all his tribe

(Othello)

Christen Varley subscriber

I am two weeks shy of 45 and I am officially a "keep off the grass" old fogey.

Shakespeare should be read aloud as it was written - then discussed so as to ensure understanding and comprehension. Then come the really fun conversations about human nature and how we don't change much century after century. And don't get me started on the side lessons of culture, dress, food, language evolution, etc. ~sigh~

I'm glad my child is learning it as written and seeing it performed this way by the Great Lakes Theatre here in Cleveland, OH. I suppose I'll have to (get to!) teach my grandchildren myself.

And, for some real fun: How did the Bard spell his name?

Shakesper, Shakespear, Shakespere, Shakspear, Shakespeer, ...

There about nine confirmed variants. So, why Shakespeare? Because that is the variant used in the "First Folio" of his plays. //Read Caxton for an analysis of the changes in word use and the beginnings of the regularization of English spelling.//

//And, in sixth grade, a classmate of mine on his spelling test, spelled the Bard's name "Shakesbeer". ... Now that was a true winner!//

PS. P/B is like S/T, a change of a guttural stop. In Classical Greek, the spelling of the sea was either, Thalassa, or Thalatta. The difference was about 25 miles, geographically.

A note here. If you can't read Shakespeare's works in the original, then reading them in translation/transliteration may give you an idea of the story, but will ruin the experience of the Bard's poetry.

PS. My favorite example of the humor that we see is in Henry IV, part 1. And of these, who can forget Prince Harry's great saying about "every Tom, Dick, and Frances". ... Think a bit, that pun implies that the phrase "Tom, Dick, and Harry" was both new and contemporaneous enough with the writing of the play that a player named "Harry" could use "Frances" as an inside joke that would probably have brought the house down in laughter. Today, it passes through with not a thought. ...

Christopher Hoving subscriber

@David Ecale 2nd City once did a parody selling "the best jokes from Shakespeare." Included was a book so you "could get the jokes you get." Will Rogers liked to say that it wasn't telling the jokes that took the time, it was the explaining them. Jokes are always largely contemporaneous. Only those at the time or a scholar later will get them. There is no point to a joke not understood. The long-running improv murder-mystery play "Shear Madness" never has the same jokes because they are always based on what is happening at the time of the performance. (Who the killer is each performance is determined by a vote of the audience before the denouement.) I attended St. John's College at Annapolis, MD (one campus of the "Great Books" school - the other in Santa Fe, NM) and I deplore the dumbing-down of America, but I applaud this effort to make Shakespeare more accessible. As with a translation from a foreign language, one may always check the original and prefer one attempt over another.

@Christopher Hoving @David Ecale Hmmm... All I can respond with is: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"!

I was at St. Thomas (BA. English, as opposed to one of those STEM degrees) in St. Paul, Mn., so I understand your background. And, to change the subject just a bit, there's nothing like having Milton's Paradise Lost being taught by a Catholic Priest. ... You'd absolutely, positively, better know both your Christian heresies as well as your Reformation branches of the Christian Faith. (Intra-English & European political arrangements, too!)

And, Yes! Many of the allusions, jokes, and puns were contemporaneous with the era of his plays: 1580 ~ 1610! If it'll get folks to read Shakespeare, then the more, the better.

PS. Having read Homer in the Classical Greek & also Lattimore's translations, I can understand the idea. And, then again, just how many "revised" versions of the KJV are out there (for the same reason)!

Kelly Fornwall subscriber

"But are we satisfied with Shakespeare’s being genuinely meaningful only to an elite few unless edited to death or carefully excerpted?"

I am neither elite nor remotely anything near genius, but I love to hear and read in its original format, and enjoy the feeling of actually using my brain. It is not that difficult to understand, although because phrases/speech patterns have changed a bit, you do have to pay attention. Also, it is modern English, just more formal than we are used to hearing.

@Kelly Fornwall Agreed, almost. A small addition, use of the "thee, thou, and thine declination is actually "less" formal than the "you, you, and yours" declination. (See the German "du" for the personal declination that matches that in English.) ...

PS. The KJV Bible makes extensive use of "thee, thou, and thine". By 1650, or so, the use had coalesced to using "you" exclusively.

PPS. From HS German: To become intimate (conversationally) with a girl, the question, "Darf ich du sagen?" //May I say thou?// is the appropriate method.

@Kelly Fornwall Feel the same about Chaucer? I sometimes would like subtitles on BBC shows, except those set in Oxford -- like "Morse."

@David Ecale @Kelly Fornwall I've heard, "Duerfen wir uns dutzen?"

@David Ecale @Kelly Fornwall Thank you so much for the correction! I'm sure I feel this way because verse feels more formal to modern eyes/ears. I also grew up with the KJV Bible and enjoy it far more than any "modern" translation.

@Christopher Hoving @Kelly Fornwall Yes! I took Middle English as an elective in college (about 100 years ago) and enjoyed reading the Canterbury Tales tremendously (Riverside ed. - A hard back book bigger than my head!). As a matter of fact, I recently purchased another copy. It will definitely be a challenge! Have a great weekend!

David desJardins subscriber

It's just not actually that hard to understand Shakespeare. Taking snippets of text out of context, in writing, is a lot different from seeing them performed by talented actors onstage. The latter already solves this "problem".

@David desJardins Do you not read the captions at operas? There I agree the performance is really enough to understand, but the main reason is librettos are usually really basic, even embarrassing at times. Knowing the words may actually detract from the performance, like knowing the words of a classic rock song. Consider also the silent film in "Singing in the Rain" where the hero gets away with "I love you; I love you; I love you" because his lines are not heard, but is laughed at when the same lines are in a "talky." Obviously, I would not want to hear a modern English translation of Gilbert & Sullivan (in fact, I walked out of a performance of the "Mikado" that begin with several Japanese -- I think -- actors shouting "Toyota, Nissan, etc." -- recently, a performance was cancelled as politically incorrect but is a whole other matter) but that is because I understand what is being said. Shakespeare & Sullivan would not work for me.

@Christopher Hoving I wouldn't attend an opera if you paid me. Partly because, as you say, there's really nothing under all the show. Shakespeare is not that, at all.

ROBERT BALOPOLE subscriber

I think it is great this option will exist. The public can choose which they prefer. The original text will always be there for those who must have it.

@ROBERT BALOPOLE True - but how many people will see the performances of the edited texts and think they've experienced Shakespeare, when they won't have at all? How many of those people will ever go on to experience the real thing?