I was reading a translated copy in modern English of The Tempest. And one of the sentence of the original text which was

All things in common nature should produce without sweat or endeavour.

Was translated into:

Nature would produce everything people needed, and all of it would be shared equally by all.

According to me, the original sentence just means that the nature should produce everything by itself without any human attempt. But there is no implication that it will be distributed equally. So, is the translation incorrect? English is my third language so I tend to take analytical approach while construing sentence-meaning. But I'm having unprecedented trouble in doing so with "The Tempest". Is there any tip?

  • ell.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask There is no such thing as a translated copy of The Tempest, which is written in English. There may be explanations in modern English of 16th century English. I suggest you read annotated versions of Shakespeare and please don't ask any more questions like these. Thanks. – Lambie Nov 7 at 22:08
  • You're missing the phrase in common. That qualifies all things, not nature. – Colin Fine Nov 8 at 0:02

What Gonzalo was saying here is, Everything would be produced without any hard work/labor, nature would avail enough harvest to share fairly among all his innocent people.(As there will be not crime or weapons)

All things in common nature should produce without sweat or endeavor. Treason, felony, sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine, Would I not have. But nature should bring forth of its own kind all foison, all abundance, To feed my innocent people.

It is when you look at the whole passage where you get the meaning of it.

I hope this helps.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.