There are many different text versions of The Tragedy of Macbeth. Although the story of Macbeth is widely known, not all copies of the text are the same. Some variations of the text may make the play clearer to the reader, while others only confuse the reader more. Our group compared the e-text of Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the Oxford text of Macbeth. In our opinion, the Oxford text is a more reliable resource.
At first glance, the page layout of the MIT e-text is uncluttered and plain, but the design is not as professional as we would have expected. Also, many essential features within the text are missing. For example, there are no line numbers, making it difficult for scholars to use, cite and refer to specific lines.
Another example of the unreliability of this source lies in the stage directions. Although the stage directions are italicized and are similar to the Oxford version, some extremely important directions are left out. For example, in Act 1 Scene 2, the direction for Angus to enter is non-existent. In this scene, Angus and Ross are sent to tell Macbeth of his new title. Angus is present in Scene 3, and is the actual person who tells Macbeth of the news—Angus says “we are sent to give thee from our royal master thanks…” (1.3.100-101). How is it possible that Angus knew of the news and “was sent” if he was not present when the King told him so?
Although this does not lower the reliability of this e-text, differences in punctuation are numerous, and affect the reading of many lines. For example, the first line in the Oxford version ends in a question mark, while the e-text version does not. One instance where the punctuation change influences the reliability of the site is as follows: the MIT version often replaces the apostrophes in the Oxford edition with the vowel “e”, changing the pronunciation and modifying the scansion. For example, the Oxford version writes a line as such: “whence cam’st thou, worthy Thane? From Fife, great King”, while the e-text uses the word “camest”, changing the number of syllables to 11, and disturbing the scansion (1.2.48).
There are also differences in the names of characters—one calls the soldier who reports the battle a captain, while the e-text calls him a sergeant. Without historical evidence concerning which rank was usually charged with reporting to the king, we cannot say which version is more reliable concerning this point. With all the changes MIT has made to this text, we believe this particular e-text of Shakespeare’s Macbeth is unreliable. Many changes that have been made to the text change the set up of the scene and lines dramatically. Also, the lack of line numbers and separate pages for each act make the reader’s experience a frustrating one. We hope MIT edits this e-text of Macbeth as soon as possible, so that English students everywhere will not have to put up with this confusing e-text of Shakespeare’s Macbeth for much longer. This would be very helpful to all scholars and students who rely on e-text versions for essays and assignments.
Works Cited:
Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Ed. Nicholas Brooke. New York: Oxford, 1998.
4 comments:
Dear MacLordz,
We too analyzed the differences between the MIT text and the Oxford text; however, one thing you should keep in mind is that the Oxford text is not necessarily correct. It is not right to suggest that MIT changed the Oxford text because it is impossible to know which text is more similar to the original written by Shakespeare.
Also, you mentioned that the MIT text does not indicate that Angus enters, however, have you considered that perhaps the character Angus is not of any real importance? Or that Angus was merely a character created by the editor of the Oxford text? It is interesting to note that in the dedications section of the Oxford text, the editor dedicates the text to someone by the name of Angus.
Apart from this interesting observation, we have found the same differences that you have.
- Macdeath (AM)
I persoanlly agree with Macdeath on this note. However, I am ready to admit that your own view is not one hundred percent wrong, though I find that you may be too quick to side with the "sexier" version of the play. That is to say, the one that is in a book as opposed to the one that is in plain font on a web page. Though the MIT source is not recently updated, this may be even more a testament to the fact that it stays true to the original text more than the Oxford text.
Besides, there is no explanation for Angus, other than the fact that maybe the editor took some liberties with the text, which also means that it should be considered a little harder to trust, though not untrustable.
Dear MacLordz,
My group also analyzed the MIT version and compared it to the Oxford version. I agree with you that the lack of enough line references does make the MIT version more bothersome to read but I felt you were biased in that you believed that the Oxford version is the standard.
For example, perhaps the rhythm and meter in the MIT version is the correct meter as Shakespeare had intended and it was really Oxford that had it wrong in the beginning.
Despite this, I agree with many of the other things that you mentioned. The dilemma concerning Angus is really very strange. You make a good point about him communicating the news even though he was not there (according to MIT) but I suppose MIT has a logical reason for removing the character as he does not have lines in this particular scene. I think you made other really good points too! :)(Also interesting to note is the change in norwegian to norweyan!)
- Salina
Post a Comment