February 2, 2010

John McWhorter kicked up a firestorm of controversy in last month's issue of American Theatre by arguing that Shakespeare be translated into modern English, much as has been done with Beowulf.  Dr. McWhorter, it should be noted, knows a thing or two about language, having published and lectured extensively to both scholarly and lay audiences on linguistics.  I find his reasoning compelling.  I've taken courses on Shakespeare as an undergrad and in the Smithsonian Resident Associates Program; I've read and seen all the plays - some many times - and I don't get everything that's spoken, even when I reread the play before the performance.  It goes beyond acting; Old English, which is closer to what the plays are written in, is a foreign language.

Ironically, Shakespeare travels well abroad.  When the language is translated and brought up to date for non-English-speaking audiences, they love it.  Why this sanctimony exists over preserving Shakespeare's written word is beyond me; the transpositions in time, place, and intent that the Bard's best works have been subjected to - just in the Washington, DC area alone - make the discussion of language trivial.  And that's saying nothing about the hundreds of lines that are regularly hacked out of his 5 Act plays to bring them in at something resembling 2 ½ to 3 hours.  One theater has made a name for itself by dispensing with the words altogether: they mime the productions!

If we can do it to good effect for Euripides and Aeschylus, not to mention Racine and Chekhov, why are we bemoaning a revision of Shakespeare?  You'll always have the text for comparison.  Some enterprising theater should start the process going (if it hasn't already been done) with a play or two, presenting the "original" text(s) in repertory with a translated production or pair of them.  You could even shuffle the deck on the schedule, to offer a season unlike any other.   Such a contrast might better convey both the deep meanings and the subtleties we would otherwise overlook.  "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet."