IV translation: Pierre

[alice wellintown]

Previously I wondered...
If, in 400 years, native speakers of American English  are still
reading Pynchon, will it need translation? I compared my Future
Pynchonian texts with our Shakesearean ones. Our Shakespearean texts
are full on annotation and, of course, Shakespeare has been
"translated" into an English closer to our own; this text is often set
next to or parallel to the original. Words that have shifted in
meaning or usage are explained in footnotes & Co.

We find these kinds of texts for Middle English literature, like
Chaucer's CT. And, for Old English texts, like Beowulf.

But we don't see such texts of Milton. I guess we could dig one up.
But they are not common. We do find annotated Milton, and Critical
Editions like the Norton text. But Milton, who was a lad when
Shakespeare died, knew the language of Shakespeare. Of course, Milton
is a very different poet; his training, education, travel, religion,
the context or his political life and his political work...all
influence his works and his language. Still, we "translate"
Shakespeare and not Milton. Why is that? What little prose we have of
Shakespeare gets the same treatment. Why? We don't "translate"
Milton's English prose. We annotate and gloss, but not "translate." Is
it because we market Shakespeare to everyone and Milton only to
graduate students we don't like?

Or, is Shakespeare, like Pynchon, a writer who requires "translation"?
If so, those closer to the publication have an advantage. So, work
quickly translators. Many who speak Pynchon's language have one foot
on the platform and one foot in the sailor's grave. We may be your
best foot, NB.