****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 reading Shakespeare's language, there is a flow in the story, while on the other hand, modern language does not contain as much of a flow. Shakespeare's language is more concise, as my friend Natilia said. The modern language explains the story more in depth, making it longer, while Shakespeare's language connects multiple things into one sentence as well as omitting several words. One line from Shakespeare, " He's here in double trust", sounds better than the translation, "The king trusts me in two ways." While the first has more sophistication and a nice flow to it, the translation really flattens it out and makes it way too simple. Major changes that the translator had made was adding more words to the text and explaining more in detail than what Shakespeare had done. In addition, the translator replaced many of Shakespeare's complex words to more simpler ones since the meanings of some words then have a completely differently meaning now. The sentence structure in the modern translation is kind of choppy and not well put together, when Shakespeare's language ties together. Even though the modern text is far easier to understand, people like to perform the original language since it enhances the play and makes it more complex. The language gives the play a new dimension and it become more interesting as well.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s work is popular to many people. It is authentic and different than most other literature we read. People like the way his language sounds, sophisticated and descriptive. When reading his work, one is met with a lot of tough lines that include many different meanings. Reading Shakespeare is very hard and many people don’t really understand what he is saying. Translations even leave out parts to make it easier sometimes. Reading Shakespeare’s original text and the translation, I didn’t really notice any significant changes. I feel that the translation did a really good job and there weren’t any huge differences. A lot of the time the translations leave out a lot but this one didn’t. It was saying the same thing as the original text just in a more literal way with no possibility of wondering about what is really being said. Shakespeare’s language is different than modern language. A lot of the words are the same we use now but he writes lines with words placed in a different order. Also, many of the words he used have changed over the years and have completely different meanings, so we don’t use them the way that he did. Shakespeare cuts a lot of words short with the use of apostrophes, instead of writing the whole word, which usually isn’t too hard but it can sometimes be difficult to know the word he wrote. Performances are usually done with the original language. Even though we understand the translations of his writing a lot better, performances of his writing are always done in his original language. People like the way it sounds. It’s completely different to what we are used to and just sounds so original. Yeah if performances were done in translation more people would understand but it just wouldn’t be the same, it wouldn’t have the same effect as the original. “But in these cases we still have judgment here, that we but teach bloody instructions, which, being taught, return to plague th’ inventor…” When performing this line, you could just say something about when teaching people killer instructions it comes back and haunts the teacher, but it just wouldn’t work well and shouldn’t be changed. I feel performances of Shakespeare’s work will always be done in his original language. It needs to be, without it, there wouldn’t be the same effect. There are just so many different possible meanings of the lines he wrote. His language and the way he wrote, make his work so popular and so interesting.
ReplyDeleteFrom the time of Shakespeare to modern times, language in literature and everyday life has greatly changed. Some words from Shakespeare's time are no longer used or the meaning of the word has change over a period of time. Because of these differences from then to now, a translated version of Shakespeares work is needed for most people to understand it. Shakespeare is much less descriptive so this leaves alot of room for interpretations which many people do make while reading it in modern times. There are many changes made through out the translations. Since it is supposed to make it easier for the reader complicated sentences from the original text are changed and interpretted so they would make sense to most people who do not understand the language Shakespeare used. More details and modern language are added to the text. An example of this is one of the lines from the origainal text: "Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return To plague th' inventor: this even-handed justice
ReplyDeleteCommends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice". Many people may not understand what that means but in the translation it is made much clearer: "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." The translation really flattens out the meanings and adds more description so they do make alot more sense. Although the translation is very helpful, people often always revert back to the original text and perform it in the original language. This is useful because it gives you a better understanding of life then and the language that went along with it and it doesnt seem as modern. The language also makes it much more sophisticated fitting the time period. There are huge changes between Shakespeares original text and the translated modern version of it.
The English language has evolved and changed greatly since Shakespeare wrote his last great works. When using a translated version of Shakespeare's works, you may gain an understanding, but you will lose the way that Shakespeare crafted his sentences. He uses words that have since gone extinct, or words that have changed greatly in meaning. His uses of literary devices, such as alliterations, consonance, and repetition help to portray the scene Shakespeare wanted to make. Shakespeare's writing style described scenes, but was vague enough to allow room for vastly different interpretations of his writings, which can cause widespread debate and allows for his works to live beyond their times by ridiculous amounts. The way Shakespeare crafts his sentences make it seem like he carefully thought about each sentence, the placement, and the words he used made Shakespeare a true literary genius.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading and analyzing both the original and modern text, I noticed many similarities and differences. The original text of Macbeth had much more flow than the modern text. It almost seemed like I was reading a poem. The whole piece of writing was symbolic and it really made you think as you read. I had much trouble trying to figure out what I was reading. As Tori Flavin said, Shakespeare left the monologue open for you to think about. I agreed one hundred percent. A lot of the words Shakespeare used could have had many different meanings. In the translated version of Macbeth’s monologue, I noticed that the writer added more words and detailed more. This helped me figure out what Shakespeare was really saying in his original text. An observation that my group had about the modern text was that the writer actually flat out told you what to think. Even though the modern text of anything is easier to understand, people still decide to read the original version of Shakespeare’s writing. I think this is because people like the challenge and the different word choice in his text. Shakespeare’s original text is more complex and it makes you really feel like you are living in the Elizabethan time era. You don’t get that feeling while reading a translated version. Overall, I would still rather read a translated version. It gives me more understanding.
ReplyDeleteThrough hundreds of years much has developed and changed with the English language. In Shakespeare’s text he uses uncommon words that make it hard for us, as teenagers unfamiliar with the language, to interpret and understand. After reading over what it really means in modern English it’s easier to appreciate and understand what Shakespeare is saying. The flow of his words goes a lot better than the modern interpretation. When reading the two texts I noticed that Shakespeare gets his point across in far less words than the modern interpretation. His sentence structure is very hard to decipher at first, but once you know what is being said it sounds a lot better and uses less words. This may have to do with how we communicate in comparison to then and now. I noticed a significant change in the translation when the translator used a more common metaphor for us to understand, then when Shakespeare had said it. (Lines 8-10) She used the metaphor of a teacher and student while Shakespeare said instructions and an inventor in a unfamiliar context. As easy as it is to understand the translation, all of Shakespeare’s plays are still performed in his Old English because the language is much more interesting and the flow of it sounds better. One line that really stood out to me was line 15 and 16 when it says “Who should against his murderer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself.” This line has much meaning in it, using not that many words, especially in comparison to the translation. Overall, Shakespeare’s language is much more sophisticated to us, but sounds better in most situations, which is why Shakespeare is so famous and his plays are still performed to this day.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing the work of Shakespeare to its modern day equivalent there are many obvious differences.The translator at many points simplifies the text so that it is easier to understand by a modern audience. By doing this the translator flattens the text and it almost loses its meaning. An example of this is seen in the beginning of the text: "But for crimes like these there are still punishments in this world." This translation makes the work of Shakespeare seem trifle and has no feeling, almost detached. Even though parts of Shakespeare's work is difficult to understand it flows better than the modern translation. The language of Shakespeare is also concise and does not seem futile. The modern translation is easier to understand, but Shakespeare does a better job of making the language flow. Although the language is difficult for us to understand today, if the language was studied so it is understandable the original text would seem better than its translation. The translation is easier to understand, however, if these things were said in modern English they would sound ridiculous while the language of Shakespeare does not make it sound ridiculous. Shakespeare's language has also won the test of time and as a result his plays are performed the original language.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's writing is known for its language and exceptional flow. Although it is sometimes helpful to "modernize” the text, it definitely takes away from the original writing. Specifically this passage from Macbeth illustrates the loss of flow that his writing has when its meaning is translated to modern language. For an example the line “Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return To plague th' inventor” is translated to “By commiting violent crimes we only teach other people to commit violence, and the violence of our students will come back to plague us teachers.” This translation makes it clearer but it also ruins the flow and the beauty of the original text. A significant change that the translator made was “If the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease success”, some how got modernized into “If the assassination of the king could work like a net, sweeping up everything and preventing any consequence.” The translator usually leaves out parts of Shakespeare's original text and flattens out the meaning, but here they added a random simile that was not in the original. The comparison to the net may help others understand what the word trammel means but it is completely random. Shakespeare often rearranges the structure of his sentences putting the object before the subject to make the reader wonder what his true meaning is. He also uses words that may have more than one meaning to give sentences a double meaning. Even though the translated version is easier to understand than the original there is a reason people always perform the original. It is because Shakespeare wrote it that way for a reason, and that is the way it should stay performed. Some things were not meant to be “modernized” and I think Shakespeare's writing is one of those things. The whole draw to his stories is the language, the play on words, and the unique sentence structure. That is why people are still so fascinated by his writing hundreds of years later.
ReplyDeleteThe Shakespeare translation into the modern English was a good interoperation. But the modern English version lacks the descriptive play like way that Shakespeare writes in. In Shakespeare's version it feels like he sets the scene better and he's better at describing the way that specific person is feeling in that scene. The translated version is so much easier to understand but, I think people always use the original language to preform plays because its written in more of a screen play way, where as the modern text is written in more of a novel type format. The modern translation of Shakespeare's text is exactly what it is a translation, there's really no feeling or expression to it not like the way Shakespeare's version is, he uses very expressive language and metaphors to grasp people's attention. There's nothing that can compare to Shakespeare's original text, nothing is better.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is famous for his style of writing and this is rightfully so. It is true that it is difficult to understand. But it is also true that it captures his time period well. Shakespeare uses words to his advantage. The original text is in the form of a poem. He uses the technique of breaking lines to support the flow of the story. Because the ‘translated’ text does not do this, it seems as though it takes away from the author’s intent. The modern text uses a lot more words giving a more detailed explanation. This only allows the reader one way to look at it. The translated version gives a literal interpretation. Shakespeare on the other hand, writes in a way that different people can find different meanings in. His original work has a sense of emotional depth compared to the modernized version. I believe that this is the reason why directors choose to use the original text in performances.
ReplyDeleteComparing Shakespeare's language to the more modern version there are similarities and differences. Some people find Shakespeare's writing very hard to read and confusing, so the modern version of Macbeth definitely helps the reader understand the story and is much easier to follow. In the modern version some of the words would be switched around to an easier word that most people know or use in modern day language. What I also noticed about the two are that they are very different in length. You can see that the modern Macbeth has much more writing to fully explain the story so that the reader can understand better. The two versions are very similar because obviously they are about the same story and have some of the same sentences. The reason that the original text of Shakespeare is chosen is because Shakespeare has such a different take on things and has a very interesting way of language. His text really makes you think about what you are reading or listening to, which I personally believe is a great thing for a writer to do.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading both the original and modern text of the exert from Macbeth, I found certain differences between the two. I believe the differences were made in order to appropriately embrace each of their audiences. In general, the original text offers a translation that can lead its readers to many intricate thoughts and differing interpretations. These thoughts and interpretations are branched out from the original plot, and allow multiple versions to enter your mind. In the modern text, a reader can gaze at the words and leave with a comprehension of the events that occurred. This version delivers a specific and the correct meanings and images associated with the original text. However, in order not to complicate plot, the modern text dumbs down most of the language and in doing so, misses Shakespeare's wonderful nature . The audience of the original text is usually avid Shakespeare readers who are looking to marvel at Shakespeare's work and grand style of writing. This group of people enjoy the work of interpreting and realizing the original message. The audience of the modern text is usually people who are entering into the world of Shakespeare and are not yet able to fully comprehend the original text. This group of people can be terrified and discouraged by Shakespeare's writing. By reading a text that directly gives them the sole message allows them to understand the base level of Shakespeare. Unfortunately, the base level is missing the best part of Shakespeare. The ingenuity and derived messages included in the original and whole text of Shakespeare enter the reader into literature that goes beyond the simplicity of a plot with characters.
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, Shakespeare uses a type of language that is not easy to understand. Being a teenager, sometimes it is difficult to comprehend certain things, especially Shakespeare's writing. In many of Shakespeare's writing pieces, there are little foot notes that can help the reader to understand and interpret his writing. His writing is hard to understand merely because it goes into extreme depth. This means that it is extremely meaningful and symbolizes many different themes and objects. After reading both the modern and Shakespeare's version, I noticed that the modern one was longer. This is because it needed to explain what Shakespeare was trying to say. When Shakespeare writes, it is usually short and to the point to get his message across in as little writing as possible. This leaves the reader with an open mind so they can try and use their imagination to "crack his code". Trying to figure out his writing requires a wide knowledge and imagination. What does Shakespeare really mean when he says "We’d jump the life to come", does he really mean that someone is going to skip the afterlife? Or is he using that line to symbolize consequences that people wish didn't exist. If their were no consequences, crimes would be committed everywhere everyday. Shakespeare takes his writing to a whole other level and his style of writing is simply more dramatic than the modern version which seems to draw people in.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare “Old English” has greatly changed over the course of the year. One of Shakespeare’s famous play called “Macbeth”, there were many differences between its original monologue and the modern “translation”. As I was reading the modern “translation” and the original text of Macbeth I noticed that Shakespeare uses a substantial amount of vocabularies and those vocabularies might have different meanings from today’s vocabularies. I also noticed that it’s harder to pronounce the word in Shakespeare language than in the modern day English. For example: ‘tis, ‘twere, o’erleaps, and etc… Also, in the modern text the images were very clear and I understand what was happening, but in the original text it was very difficult to visualize what the images were like. The significant changes that the “translator” felt he/she needed to make was the large vocabularies that Shakespeare uses back then. He/she felt the urge to change the vocabularies because now in the modern day nobody uses those words anymore, so they wouldn’t be able to understand what Shakespeare meant. Between the modern language and Shakespeare’s language, Shakespeare’s language is hard to understand, but it’s a very unique language than the modern language. The more I learn about the language that Shakespeare uses, the more I was intrigued by it. Modern English is just nice and short, but Shakespeare’s language is very unique in many ways. People virtually always perform the original language because it sounds better than the modern language.
ReplyDeleteAfter many years through time the english language has changed and evolved. It has changed so much that the writing that was created in the time of Shakespeare is now difficult and seems unnatural to read to some people. In the time period that Shakespeare was writing in, many of the words had different meanings than they do today. An example of the different language that they used was on line 4 when Shakespeare said “If the assassination could trammel up the consequence, and catch.” A modern writer might not use the word trammel, which means a restriction of someone's freedom, they would use a different word or a number of words to get that same point across. For people reading the text now this makes it much harder to interpret and read, but, if one knows the language and grammar that he used in that time then they will find that the writing is much more thoughtful and has much more flow than modern text. This also shows that Shakespeare uses less words and gets his point across quicker than modern writers. Just by looking at the modern text versus the original version you can see that the modern text is significantly longer. Shakespeare puts much more thought into the words he says so he does not write as much. This shows how much a language can change and the style of writing can change over time.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the language of Old English is not a concept that is easy to grasp. Old English has changed very much and morphed into a modern day English we know and speak today. Shakespeare wrote using the Old English language and because it is not easy to understand his writing has been translated into Modern English in a way we will understand in the modern times we live in today. Not only does Shakespeare write using words that are outdated and have changed meaning dramatically over time, but the arrangement and the structure of his sentences is very unique and different. He writes in a special poetic pattern throughout his pieces. In order for him to stay consistent in his work he rearranges the structure of his sentences and sometimes makes it harder to comprehend. An example of this is in the opening lines Shakespeare writes " If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well It were done quickly." What Shakespeare was saying, in terms that we understand is, "If this business would really be finished when I did the deed, then it would be best to get it over with quickly." Both sentences translate to mean the same things but use different language and structure. Both get the same point across in unique ways. Although Shakespeare's writing is hard to understand and is definitely not what we are used to reading and comprehending these days, people are still fascinated in the words of Shakespeare. The language is still preserved today and people still perform his plays in the language he intended. They preserve this history and the rich uniqueness of his words and it will remain this way for a long time to come. His words create art and beauty and people appreciate his genius writing greatly.
ReplyDeleteThe way people speak has changed dramatically overtime. Shakespeare writes in old English which for us is very hard to understand. Macbeths monologue was translated into modern day English. Modern day English is obviously easier for us to read and
ReplyDeleteunderstand seeming where that is how we speak. There are similarities in the two but there are also differences. The meaning of the sentence is the same and its the same story being told . The difference is the sentence structure. Shakespeare changed sentence structure around which made it even harder to understand what Macbeths monologue is meaning. Although it is easier for most to read the translated version many people still prefer the original. People like reading it the way Shakespeare wrote it because it is the original, Shakespeare wrote it that way and that is the way it is meant to be performed and read. It brings the story together the way it was meant to be. If you are a fan of Shakespeare then you like the way he writes and what he writes about changing he sentence structure and the language of it is like reading a different story and watching a different play, one that Shakespeare did not create.
As many people have stated, shakespeare is an extremely hard language to understand especially in high school and this generation where language has gotten even less complex. With translation books such as no fear shakespeare they can help people understand the message he is trying to convey to the reader using vocabulary that is much easier to understand. The translation on the right takes what shakespeare writes and adds many additional words to try to get you to understand what shakespeare meant. For example with stage directions at the beginning, the no fear shakespeare goes into detail about who is carrying what and uses more modern terms. In every single one of Shakespeare's plays he uses language that is very outdated and hard to comprehend while reading. In his writing I have noticed that he uses as few words as possible just to get his message across as with the no fear shakespeare they use many additional words to get the reader to understand what is going on. For example shakespeare says “ If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well” and the no fear shakespeare translation says “If this business would really be finished when I did the deed, then it would be best to get it over with quickly”. If this play were to be performed or spoken by someone shakespeare's words are very appropriate for the time period and can help convey the message, but while reading it is very hard to picture the setting and the story line when you can not understand the language.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing the original text of Macbeth and the modern text there seemed to be many differences. One difference of the texts I found was the difficulty. I believe that the modern text was harder to read because it was too detailed. I thought the original text of Macbeth was better because it got straight to the point, and because sometimes complex writing isn’t always good when dealing with a difficult story line. In the original text Shakespeare makes you really think when it comes to his version of Macbeth. Many people may observe the text differently. Whereas the modern text clearly states what is happening in the scene. If you ask people what version of the text they would prefer most people would choose the modern text mainly because it is much easier to comprehend. “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”, when ready this part of the original text I had no idea what the text was about. Once the passage is translated into modern text “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.” the passage is much more easier to understand. Having a translated text can be helpful in many cases. I believe that have the translated text can help you when reading Shakespeare.
ReplyDeleteTo many people, Shakespeare's writings are timeless and classic. Shakespeare's writings have more of a flow to them , while the translation is more choppy and broken up. Shakespeare's writings were more precise, and could tell more of a story while the modern translation just tells the facts. Although the translation helps to modernize the text and make it easier it to read it takes away some of the original charm that Shakespeare had. A line in Shakespeare's version is “Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return To plague th' inventor." In the modern version is it translated to “By commiting violent crimes we only teach other people to commit violence, and the violence of our students will come back to plague us teachers.” Although the modern version helps provide clarity it lacks the quality that makes people enjoy Shakespeare's writing. I feel that the translated version is missing the dramatics that make us so interested and compelled to keep reading Shakespeare. Another line from the original text is, " He's here in double trust". It was translated to, "The king trusts me in two ways." The first has sophistication and poise while the other one is more dull, just stating the facts. In many ways the original text is two-dimensional while the translated version is flat. The translation gets the point across, but lacks the pizzazz that Shakespeare brings to his writings. In Shakespeare's text he says, “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 translates to, “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.”, which is a whole lot easier to understand. Although the translated version of Shakespeare's work is less exciting, it does help get his point across. It's beneficial to read Shakespeare's version as well as the translated version so you can read all that Shakespeare has to offer while still being to understand the main point.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of many large differences between Shakespeare's original text, and that of the modernized translation. The largest being that the works of Shakespeare are seen as art, to be preserved and read and interpreted for many, many years. There is a large window of interpretations that can be written about and discussed over an exert of a larger piece. They can be quite abstract or deep and meaningful, as well as just simplified and literal, rare as it may be.The array of symbolism that can be seen in his original writing is narrowed down majorly in the modern translation. The translator keeps to one thought and carries it throughout the whole monologue. Furthermore, Shakespeare's words are bold and powerful. Some sentences are left off on certain lines, and carried onto the next. Each line and portion of the next is carefully thought out to a rhythm so that it flows off the tongue in an almost musical way, when delivered just right. This is lost in the translation, dumbing it down and taking away from the poetic beauty of the piece. One of the main factors, at least for me, in Shakespeare's writing is that his characters are people that others should be able to connect with, or at the least empathize with. While Macbeth is delivering his speech, you can see that he is torn and his emotions and expressions are conveyed through his words and the grief or elation can be felt when read aloud properly. The translation merely summarizes his thoughts, using more words to explain a concept that could not be the main point that was trying to be made. In conclusion, the translation may be helpful in a matter of leading into one way that a piece can be interpreted, yet I believe that people get more from personally reading, experiencing, and reflecting upon Shakespeare's stories first hand.
ReplyDeleteWhat I got out of the translation is that MacBeth Knows what he did was wrong. He was so convinced by his wife that it was the right thing to do and so motivated to carry though with the murder at the time. This shows how acting in the spur of a moment can hurt you in the long run. As he thinks back on the now dead king he sees he had made a tremendous mistake. MacBeth knows he would have been a great leader and was fair and responsible. He now regrets the murder of this innocent man and feels bad he left the blame on his innocent kinsmen. Eventually he knows his secret will be in danger and that he may become caught. Most of all, though, he regrets listening to his wife and following through with the killing.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare’s original text is very different from the translated version. This is because our language has changed dramatically over the years, from “old english” to what we speak today. In Shakespeare’s plays he used old english which makes it hard to understand.The original text is a work of art and very symbolic. The monologue is left open for you think about, to have an open mind and use your imagination. It forces you to “read between the lines” and interpret it in different ways. His writing is at a higher level than the modern version and his language makes it much more dramatic. Shakespeare in the original text can get his point across in very few words because some of his words can mean more than just one word, in the modern text it is very detailed to help make more sense.A line that demonstrates Shakespeare getting his point across in very few words but is still very important is “Who should against his murderer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan.” Although the translated version does not give you much room to have an open mind, it being very detailed gives you a much better visual of what is going on. A big difference is definitely the sentence structure between the two, Shakespeare would change his words around and play with the sentence structure like, putting the object before the subject. While reading you would have to do that yourself and it really makes you think, in the modern version the words are changed around for you so you can clearly understand what he is specifically trying to say.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare's original text has a more dramatic flow than the translated version of his text. Though both are written in English, Old English is like a completely different language from the Modern day English we speak today. Phases like
ReplyDelete"Vaulting ambition,
which o'erleaps itself
And falls on th' other."
translate to "The only thing motivating me is ambition, which makes people rush ahead of themselves toward disaster."
Bluntly showing just how different the two are.