****Note: If you are discussing a fellow student's observations which he / she shared with you, that is fine; just give them credit and try to extend the observation in your own way.
Original Text |
Modern Text (No Fear Shakespeare) |
|
Hautboys. Torches. Enter a
sewer and divers servants with dishes and service over the stage. Then enter MACBETH
|
Hautboys play. The stage is
lit by torches. A butler enters, and various servants carry utensils and
dishes of food across the stage. Then MACBETH enters.
|
|
5 10 15 20 25 |
MACBETH
If it were done when ’tis
done, then ’twere well
It were done quickly. If the
assassination
Could trammel up the
consequence, and catch
With his surcease success;
that but this blow
Might be the be-all and the
end-all here,
But here, upon this bank and
shoal of time,
We’d jump the life to come.
But in these cases
We still have judgment here,
that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which,
being taught, return
To plague th' inventor: this
even-handed justice
Commends the ingredients of
our poisoned chalice
To our own lips. He’s here
in double trust:
First, as I am his kinsman
and his subject,
Strong both against the
deed; then, as his host,
Who should against his
murderer shut the door,
Not bear the knife myself.
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;
And pity, like a naked
newborn babe,
Striding the blast, or
heaven’s cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers
of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed
in every eye,
That tears shall drown the
wind. I have no spur
To prick the sides of my
intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which
o'erleaps itself
And falls on th' other.
|
MACBETH
If this business would
really be finished when I did the deed, then it would be best to get it over
with quickly. If the assassination of the king could work like a net,
sweeping up everything and preventing any consequences, then the murder would
be the be-all and end-all of the whole affair, and I would gladly put my soul
and the afterlife at risk to do it. But for crimes like these there are still
punishments in this world. By committing violent crimes we only teach other
people to commit violence, and the violence of our students will come back to
plague us teachers. Justice, being equal to everyone, forces us to drink from
the poisoned cup that we serve to others. The king trusts me in two ways.
First of all, I am his kinsman and his subject, so I should always try to
protect him. Second, I am his host, so I should be closing the door in his
murderer’s face, not trying to murder him myself. Besides, Duncan has been such a humble leader, so
free of corruption, that his virtuous legacy will speak for him when he dies,
as if angels were playing trumpets against the injustice of his murder. Pity,
like an innocent newborn baby, will ride the wind with winged angels on
invisible horses through the air to spread news of the horrible deed to
everyone everywhere. People will shed a flood of tears that will drown the
wind like a horrible downpour of rain. I can’t spur myself to action. The
only thing motivating me is ambition, which makes people rush ahead of
themselves toward disaster.
|
When Translating Shakespeare, it’s virtually impossible to grasp the style and flow of the writing. In Macbeth’s translated monologue, several examples clearly identify that the text is translated. For example, in translation sentences are typically reversed. And common nouns of the times were replaced. ( example: inventor to teacher). William Shakespeare is famous for his quick explanations of things. In three words he can sum up the idea of three sentences. For example, in Macbeth’s monologue, Shakespeare writes: “this even-handed justice/ Commends the ingredients of our poisoned / chalice”. But in the No Fear Shakespeare translation, the translator writes: “Justice, being equal to everyone, forces us to drink from the poisoned cup that we serve to others.” Another example of the translator having to stretch phrases is in the beginning of Macbeth’s monologue. “If the assassination/ could trammel up the consequence, and catch/ with his surcease success.” is translated to “If the assassination of the king could work like a net, sweeping up everything and preventing any consequences…”. Instead of the swift metaphor of the assassination catching consequences in the original, the translation goes into detail by reversing the metaphor into a lengthy simile.
ReplyDeleteThe romantic language of Shakespeare is commonly lost when translated. For example “Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself/ and falls on th’ other.” is translated to simply “leads to disease”. The smooth personification is lost in translation and turned to something simply explanatory. It’s obvious why adapted plays would chose to perform from the original text. It’s simply because the original text is more artistic and stunning in its element.
Shakespeare is known to be one of the greatest writers ever. With his timeless stories and beautiful language, he is still famous centuries after his life. His stories are always a pleasure to read, however, the language he uses (Middle English), is not always easy to understand. This is why there are so many modern translations of Shakespeare's works. The modern text is great to use if you really need to understand the text and really be insightful, but that is really all it is good for. Comparing the two, it is very noticeable that Shakespeare’s writing flows as if the words were made to be there. However, while reading the modern translation, the effect is choppy. The structure of Shakespeare’s writing is also a unique style that should not be changed. In the modern translation, rather than being written as if it were a poem, it is written in an ordinary paragraph. Writing it like this loses a lot of its original dramatic effect. Another thing that sticks out is that when it is translated, a lot of the literary devices are lost. For example, Shakespeare uses the word “chalice” in a long descriptive sentence about the “poison” that is being done, and in the modern translation they use the word “cup”. When you picture a chalice, you picture a large, dramatic, golden bowl used by royalty to drink out of. When you picture a cup, you picture a red Solo cup in which you use to drink soda. The reason that people perform the original Shakespeare and not the translated Shakespeare is that when someone goes to see Shakespeare, they go for the beautiful tragedies that he creates with his words, they do not go to see an entire show spoken in choppy paragraphs. Performing Shakespeare in modern text would be just like speaking out an entire opera to try to understand it better; stupid and very offensive. Shakespeare is the one thing that should not be modernized.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is a master of writing, but as we read his writing techniques it may be confusing due to his way of speaking. When we translate shakespeare we need to look for certain things. Words we can compare to and the way they sound. theres no really way of understanding shakespeare because some of the words he uses may have the complete opposite meaning of the what the word really means or what we know it as today.When Shakespeare writes we see a big difference in the translated version. We see that when it is translated a line or verse that Shakespeare has wrote may be longer than what what he wrote. We see that words may have been added or taken out of what Shakespeare wrote because it was confusing. the only way to really understand Shakespeare is that try to find what Shakespeare is trying to get at or find the message he is trying to explain. When we see Shakespeare's writing we can tell it is a lot different for the translated version. shakespeare writing is much different than how we write and its obvious but to figure out how or what he is saying is tough job because we are use to reading modern language and Shakespeare's language is very confusing and complicated because of the terms they used then and how much it has come to change over the years till now. This is how Shakespeare writing techniques in his writing compares to the modern writing styles today.
ReplyDeleteNo translation of Shakespeare's writing will ever capture one hundred percent of what Shakespeare originally wrote nor match the skillful way of writing that Shakespeare produces in all of his literature. But, this translation will give you a clear understanding of the basics of what Shakespeare meant in his monologue and I would recommend that anyone who didn't understand Shakespeare's writing to read the translation and then reread the original writing. The translation uses modern words and formats the sentences in a modern, normal fashion. Also, the translation captures the original meaning but explains it in a way that is easier to understand. The reason translations aren't the only way we read Shakespeare's writing today is because, although they help the understanding and are easier to read, the way Shakespeare wrote was a distinctive and ingenious way and can be interpreted several ways which is what makes it unique and translations would ruin the purpose to learn from it. I do recommend however, to use translations for a better understanding of what Shakespeare was trying to say but always go back to read the original writing so you can appreciate the complexity and beauty of it.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is one of the most famous writers till this day. Though, in modern day, his beautiful language is challenging to understand; thus making a reason to translate it into simpler language. As we can see in the translation of Macbeth, it doesn't mean it makes Shakespeare’s text better. The translation does make a significant change on the length of the text. It can only take Shakespeare a few words to describe a meaning or observation while it takes sentences in modern text. The translation makes it clear to see symbolism and metaphors, though this can be interpreted as a bad thing because in Shakespeare’s writing, you get to infer and estimate what his symbols/metaphors mean; perceiving it in your own way. Another significant change in the translation of Macbeth is that you can see more of the plot of the play, and what the true meaning of it. Shakespeare’s writing is flattened in much of the translation. The tone Shakespeare gives off in Macbeth is not as intense in modern day text, his complex vocabulary is no longer there and it doesn’t bring any complexity to the writing, and his interesting word play is choppy and isn’t and fluently poetic. These reasons are also why I believe people don’t perform the translation. Shakespeare writing takes more skill to act, making a challenge for the actors. Also, the language is much prettier and it emphasizes the time period of Macbeth. The translation of Shakespeare’s Macbeth isn't as high-quality as the real thing.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that there are many differences between the original text and the translation. The translation mentions sweeping up the murder like a net, without consequences. This comparison was not mentioned within the original, meaning the translation may have a different interpretation of Macbeth than other readers. Overall, the original text has a more complicated use of wording, as the language is much older, and it takes longer for the average person to understand what is being said. The translation is very straight-forward, and is much easier to make sense of. However, since the translation has different interpretations on what is being said, it is best to use the text and translation together when reading Macbeth, especially if one does not have experience reading older English. The translation is useful for understanding the story only. The original is used to pick up on less direct details, such as motifs that may have been ignored by the translation. One big reason people may perform Macbeth in its original language is simply because it is exactly that: the original. The play would lack interest or immersion with the plot if modern, more direct English was used. The original text is exactly the way Shakespeare wanted it to be read.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s language is so complex, so full of meaning and metaphors that it cannot be replicated with other words. His structure, word choice and depth add many layers to his writing. In modern translations, only the literary meaning is expressed. When Shakespeare’s Macbeth is translated, the translator makes the passages clunky with less flow, the entire rhythm of the writing changes. This rhythm is as important to the understanding of emotion a character is expressing as the word choice is. Different sounds and paces set different tones about the piece. To make the text clearer, the translator flattened out “With his surcease success; that but this blow might be the be-all and the end-all here, but here, upon this bank and shoal of time, we’d jump the life to come.” This could mean that when Macbeth kills Duncan, he could be stuck in time that is not moving forward, replaying the deed in his mind instead of moving forward. He would, in a sense, be stuck in time. The translator interprets and writes this passage only as Macbeth saying that he would put his soul in the afterlife at risk for rewards in this life. True, Shakespeare’s version is harder to understand, but it holds many meanings that are different for everyone. The modern translation is flat; it has no depth and holds no meanings other than the literal one. A way Shakespeare adds complexity is by using words that we don’t usually use today, like “bank and shoal,” but by using those words, Shakespeare creates beautiful and complex images that constantly change your take on the meaning with every thought.
ReplyDeleteI think that actors find value in imagery and multiple meanings. They choose to perform his plays in their original wording because acting is entertaining, and the story is not just about what happens in it, black and white, but also about the emotions and way that it can be interpreted. Every performance can be different when actors use Shakespeare’s language because directors, actors and audience members interpret the language in different ways. This allows uniqueness and self-expression while performing. These multiple interpretations and layers of meaning are lost when Shakespeare’s words are changed. I think that actors also like the flow of the poem and how the words play off of each other. For example, “Upon the sightless couriers of the air, Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, that tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur,” explains the sadness of people of Duncan’s death in layers of sadness and effects of this devastation. It is an actor’s job to make people feel emotion and by describing it so beautifully and with harsh and powerful language, like “tears shall drown the wind” piles on emotion to make it more poignant. It is also makes you think, the audience would be hanging on to every word that is spoken. By using Shakespeare’s original language, his plays mean so much more and inspire more thinking.
Shakespeare's writing and expression of ideas is very concise, complex, and filled with literary devices. When translating his writing to modern language, a representation of the full meaning can never be achieved if translated word for word. His comparisons must be comprehended, or else the translation will potentially mean something else. I noticed that in Shakespeare's writing, he gets just as much, or more detail across than the modern translation, but he uses much less words. For example, Shakespeare uses fourteen words to get the idea of the first sentence across, and the translation requires twenty-three words. Shakespeare also uses an incredible amount of literary devices in his writing, such as similes, metaphors, and symbolism. An example of a simile from the original text is, "So clear in his great office, that his virtues/Will plead like angels,..." A significant change the translator felt like they needed to make was when Shakespeare says, "Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice/To our own lips" the translator changes it to people drinking "from the poisoned cup that we serve to others." Although Shakespeare's language is much harder to understand, it does compare somewhat to the modern language. Shakespeare uses outdated words that stand for more than one thing, and have the potential to represent ideas. The translation shows this by replacing one or two of Shakespeare's words with a whole phrase or sentence. People virtually almost always perform the original language rather than the modern because it helps express the true meaning of the play, as well as being much more concise. For example, "Who should against his murderer shut the door,/Not bear the knife myself" turns into, "I should be closing the door in his murderer's face, not trying to murder him myself." The original writing is very concise and thought provoking, while the modern text is boring.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's way of writing is complex and sometimes very hard to understand. The way he writes confuses the minds of many because of the way he structures his sentences and they way he says things. Shakespeare uses many literary devices that make his sentences so much more in depth and fascinating at the same time. This is why it may be so difficult to translate his writing because we don't fully understand what he really means and we will never know the full extent of his work because we were not alive when he was and none is alive from back then to tell us today and that's why we as reader have to interpret the best we can. This is also why we can never fully except the account of the modern version of Shakespeare because the person who wrote the modern version is just trying to interpret Shakespeare's sayings. Although we may interpret his writings I do believe that the modern version does help a lot because in the modern version it is easier to understand and let's everything come full circle. Even though the modern version helps you understand it better I would still recommend you to read Shakespeare's actual piece instead of reading the modern version of Macbeth.
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason that Shakespeare’s writing is timeless and breathtaking. Shakespeare’s language is unlike any others bursting with complex combinations of wording that can produce endless amounts of meanings and an incredible amounts of wordplay and literary devices. Due to the presence of all of these unique writing techniques, it makes it almost impossible for one to get the full meaning Shakespeare is trying to force upon the reader with a translation. One thing that is evident between the two passages is the difference in length. Shakespeare’s original language is significantly shorter. This is because of Shakespeare’s high content of word play and literary devices. This makes it so when Shakespeare uses 5 words it could take up to three times as many for us to translate a rough description of what he is intending for his readers get from it. Also, between the translation and original text there is a huge difference of metaphoric language between both passages. The original Shakespeare has many more metaphors because in the translation, they have attempted to explain them. Also, although that the translation is made to firm the understanding of the writing, I feel it has done opposite. Due to the fact that his wordplay and metaphors have been explained it closes some meanings that he may have wanted us to get from the text. In conclusion, the translation and the original text have some large differences along the way.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the time Shakespeare’s stories can be very hard to comprehend. Modern translations are used to alleviate the confusion caused by Shakespeare’s old time vocabulary and sentence construction. That being said, the modern translations should only be used to supplement your understanding, because Shakespeare’s original versions provide a unique rhythmic and meaningful depth that the modern translations just can’t provide. In terms of Macbeth, the translation is extremely helpful in regards to understanding. The translator directly converted most of Shakespeare’s words into plain English, but I noticed one area where words were added that Shakespeare did not use. In the translation it says, “If the assassination of the king could work like a net, sweeping up everything and preventing any consequences…” The part talking about the net was randomly added in by the translator for understanding, and was not in Shakespeare’s original version at all. This aids in understanding, but takes away from the flow of the monologue because it isn’t meant to be there. The original, on the other hand, has exceptionally good rhythm (in true Shakespeare fashion) and conveys a more meaningful, ominous description than the translation. It provokes profoundly more emotion in the reader, line by line. Another thing to note about the original is that it uses less words than the translation, in a different order, and does a much better job than the translation at telling the story the way it should be told (observed by Mike V.) This proves that Shakespeare’s original version is truly an amazing piece of literature. Although many students, including myself, can find Shakespeare’s plays hard to understand, it is impossible to not appreciate the talented wordplay Shakespeare used that the modern English translations just can’t live up to.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is one of the most famous play writes in history. His plays are still being performed today. As Modern English has evolved from when Shakespeare wrote his plays to the present, people have found it more difficult to understand Shakespeare’s writing. There are many translations of his plays, which put his great work into easily comprehendible terms. People find these translations much easier to read, but most plays that Shakespeare wrote are performed exactly how he wrote them. This is because Shakespeare’s language sounds so much more romantic than the translations of his language. When Shakespeare’s works are translated into a language that is easier to understand, they lose the romance that Shakespeare intended. The text in the translations are much flatter than the originals. This is shown numerous times in Macbeth. For example, “surcease success” is turned into “murder” when translated. “Jump the life to come” becomes “afterlife at risk”, and “teach bloody instructions” becomes “teach others to commit violence”. The same message is given in both versions, but Shakespeare is able to tell that message in a way the captures the interest of the reader, and sounds better in a mysterious kind of way. In Shakespeare’s plays, there are certain rhythms and multiple interpretations that are lost when translated. Overall, the translations are very useful as a guide to understand the basic plot, but the reason that Shakespeare’s plays are so famous is not the plots, but the way in which he delivers the plot. No translations of Shakespeare are able to properly encapsulate the beautiful rhythm and multiple interpretations of the text, because it would take too long to give all of the possible meanings and still get the point across in a short, rhythmic manner.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's writing is timeless and also hard to understand. He uses lots of literary devices that are hard to reproduce into modern English. You can get a lot of different meanings out Shakespeare and you the way he writes is hard to copy. He is able to use literary devices to get out meanings in a lot less sentences than in the translation. Shakespeare also uses words that do not have a modern day translation like chalice the translation uses the word cup. In context those two words do not have anything alike except you drink out of them. A thing to remember about Shakespeare is it is a play and that is one reason why is is so different. Changing it into modern words makes it seem more like a book and that is not the way it was meant to be read. The flow of his words does not get into the translation. The translation however proves to help understanding if you are struggling with the language it will help you a lot but you still need to read the actual thing to catch the word play and the literary devices.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what translation you read, it will never be just like Shakespeare's original writing. Modern translations of Shakespeare are meant to help us understand the writing. But, because of the way Shakespeare plays with words, it is impossible to fully incorporate every part of the original text, and keep the same flow he does. You can see in the translation that the order of wording is often changed, because Shakespeare changes the order of words to make it sound better and create a rhythm. While some of his writing is confusing, because the language is outdated, not all of it is hard to understand. The line "I have no spur/To prick the sides of my intent but only/Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself/And falls on th' other," isn't hard to understand. When the translation writes it as "The only thing motivating me is ambition, which makes people rush ahead of themselves toward disaster," it feels like its being dumbed down, and it looses its rhythm. When people perform Shakespeare's plays, they usually perform the original version, instead a translation. While the translations would make everything easier to understand, the original version is more artistic, and the language sounds better.
ReplyDeleteShakespeares original writing is nothing compared to the translation, but it does shed some light on what he was actually talking about. Some of the pieces that they adds in to make the writing to make it more clear. For example, when they state that the would happily put their afterlife to risk he/she actually adds this in because it is not fully explained. The writing Macbeth did sounds much better when Shakespeare wrote it because of the fluidity of the writing and the flow of the language he used. Shakespeare's language compares to the modern language because of his writing style and how it differs, but he almost writes in riddles which is amazing.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare writings are similar to no one i've ever read. Shakespeare is read all throughout high school and its for a reason. It's because Shakespeare writing captures emotion that no translation can capture. That is why we read Shakespeare instead of Shakespeare's translation. One difference between the two is in my opinion Shakespeare's translation is boring to read. Also Shakespeare's language flows and the translation just says what happens. Shakespeare's language decribes whats happens using Figurative language unlike just stating what happens. Also in my opinion Shakespeare describes events them and makes me think about them. Shakespeare is a great writer and we're reading Macbeth for a reason.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is considered to be one of the greatest writers of all time. Although what he writes about is tremendous, it is difficult to understand what he is actually saying because of the difference in language back then rather than the language now. Reading the original text of Shakespeare is a lot more interesting to read and some people would rather read that than the translation. Others may want to read the translation so they actually know what they are reading about with out difficulty. The translation helped me understand his writing. You can change the words around so they have a modern time meaning but no one will ever be able to change the skillful ay of writing he produced. In the translation, there isn't that spark that the vocabulary gives you in the original text. Some words are used in both texts but the original text is way more creative and interesting. I think that there should be a book or movie using Shakespeare's language in modern times to show the difference. I recommend reading the translation to get a clear understanding but the original work of Shakespeare will always be more interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is one writer that everyone knows about one way or another and many have actually read at last one of his books. As we talked about earlier this year though the engish language has changed alot since he wrote and now many can hardly even interpret what he is actually saying. The reason though we still read the actual version is because you don't just read the book you also need to look at the writing style and the old way english used to be also some things might not seem as important and like the question said it flattens it out. Basically it takes out some of the emotion that Shakespeare writes and is so famous for making. That is why we read the original version of Shakespeare.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is one writer that everyone has a hard time understanding, but he is one of the most well known writers of his time. Our English language has changed a lot since his time period. In an extension of our activity in class last week I have made observations from the translated version of Macbeth monologue compared to the original version. Shakespeare, I believe, can make one line translate into hundreds of lines in regular English now a days. He has that type of writing in which he can express so much in so little. One thing my friend Liam pointed out was that the translation helps the reader gets the big idea of what the passage means in a way we can understand. I agree with his statement. The only bad thing about translating Shakespeare is that some of the translations become flattened or not expressed fully the right way. I like the original language more because it gives more than just the big idea, and describes a lot more things in more depth which i prefer.
ReplyDeleteThe modern translation is has more details yet is a little bit more boring than the original text. You can see in the translation that the order of wording is often changed, because Shakespeare changes the order of words to make it sound better and create a rhythm. I believe Shakespear is more interesting than the translator.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between Shakespeare and monologue in Macbeth and the translated version is the flow on how Shakespeare writes. SHakespeare allows his work to not be translated completely and have people interpret things differently. Shakespeare's language is very different than how we write today there for they structure of each individual sentence is different and not the same when translated. Shakespeare puts in many different metaphors and similes to mean more than one thing. In Shakespeare’s work he can say something in one sentence but when it is translated it needs to be in many more to get in everything Shakespeare is trying to say. Such as in Macbeth Shakespeare says, “Duncan Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been, So clear in his great office, that his virtues” but translated it says “Besides, Duncan has been such a humble leader, so free of corruption, that his virtuous legacy will speak for him when he dies, as if angels were playing trumpets against the injustice of his murder.” Everything takes so much longer to say. Also when it is said it doesn’t sound as nice as Shakespeare’s version. In Macbeth everything flows nicely along but when translated everything sounds choppy and not put together. There are many places in the translated text that pretty much say the same thing as Shakespeare therefore giving no real translation at all. Such as in Macbeth it says “The deep damnation of his taking-off; And pity, like a naked new born babe, Striding the blast, or heaven’s cherubim, horsed” and in the translated text it says “Pity, like an innocent newborn baby, will ride the wind with winged angels on invisible horses through the air to spread news of the horrible deed to everyone everywhere.” This is pretty much the same thing which makes it hard to be a translation if its just telling you the same thing over again. Overall, I think it is hard to fully translate Macbeth because every line can be interpreted a different way and leaves out important details that could be viewed as important with different opinions.
ReplyDelete